Ohio Federal Court Vacates $122,500 TCPA Award Against Receivables Performance Management

Case Snapshot

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
• Case: Ramsey v. Receivables Performance Management LLC et al., No. 1:16-cv-01059
• Decision Date: Sept. 29, 2026
• Core Issue: Whether a predictive dialer calling numbers from predetermined debtor lists qualifies as an ATDS under the TCPA.
• Key Allegation: RPM allegedly violated the TCPA by placing 245 automated calls to a consumer’s cellphone without consent.
• Court Holding: The Noble Predictive Dialer did not meet the ATDS definition because the evidence did not establish the required random or sequential number generation capability.
• Outcome: The court vacated the previous $122,500 TCPA award and granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claim. The Ohio consumer protection claim remains unresolved.
• Notable Detail: The court applied the Supreme Court’s 2021 Duguid decision to reconsider a 2020 judgment based on Sixth Circuit precedent that the Supreme Court subsequently displaced.

A federal judge in Ohio has vacated a $122,500 Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) award against Receivables Performance Management LLC (RPM), ruling that the debt collector’s predictive dialing system did not qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal law.

In a Sept. 29, 2026, opinion and order, U.S. District Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins of the Southern District of Ohio granted RPM’s motion for reconsideration and awarded summary judgment to the defendants on the TCPA claim.

The decision in Ramsey v. Receivables Performance Management LLC reinforces the distinction between equipment that automatically dials numbers from predetermined lists and systems capable of using random or sequential number generators, a critical consideration for debt collection agencies operating predictive dialing technology.

Court Reverses Earlier TCPA Judgment

The dispute originated in 2014 when Phillip Ramsey challenged $1,174.19 in charges associated with telecommunications services provided by Windstream Communications. The charges involved nearly 200 on-demand movies purchased by Ramsey’s father without his knowledge or consent.

Ramsey requested that Windstream and affiliated collection agencies stop contacting him. However, Windstream did not communicate his written cease-contact request to RPM when it subsequently placed the accounts for collection.

Between February and July 2015, RPM placed 245 calls to Ramsey’s cellphone using a Noble Predictive Dialer.

Ramsey filed suit in November 2016, alleging violations of the TCPA and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA).

In 2020, the district court granted partial summary judgment in Ramsey’s favor, finding that RPM’s dialing equipment qualified as an ATDS under then-controlling Sixth Circuit precedent. The court awarded $122,500 in TCPA damages.

That decision relied on Allan v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, a 2020 Sixth Circuit ruling interpreting the TCPA’s autodialer definition to include equipment that automatically dialed numbers from stored lists.

However, the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Facebook Inc. v. Duguid changed the applicable legal standard.

Supreme Court’s Duguid Decision Determines Outcome

In its 2021 Duguid decision, the Supreme Court held that equipment qualifies as an ATDS under the TCPA only if it has the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce telephone numbers to be called.

The ruling displaced the broader interpretation previously adopted by the Sixth Circuit in Allan.

RPM sought reconsideration of the $122,500 award, arguing that its dialing technology did not satisfy the Supreme Court’s narrower definition.

Judge Hopkins agreed that the intervening change in controlling law justified reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

The court examined RPM’s dialing operations, which relied on an internal database known as the PICK system and the Noble Predictive Dialer.

The PICK system maintained debtor account information, including telephone numbers, addresses, and account balances. Each night, it selected accounts based on predetermined parameters and transferred the resulting calling lists to the Noble system.

The Noble Predictive Dialer then automatically called numbers from those lists and connected answered calls to available collection agents.

Although the system operated automatically, the court found that the evidence demonstrated dialing from targeted, preexisting lists rather than the use of a random or sequential number generator to store or produce telephone numbers.

The court also rejected Ramsey’s argument that calling numbers sequentially from a stored list satisfied the TCPA’s autodialer definition.

In reaching its conclusion, the court cited the Sixth Circuit’s 2025 decision in Fluker v. Ally Financial Inc., which similarly distinguished automated dialing from a predetermined list from equipment using random or sequential number generation.

The court concluded that RPM’s Noble Predictive Dialer did not qualify as an ATDS and granted summary judgment to the defendants on Ramsey’s TCPA claim.

Ohio Consumer Protection Claim Remains Unresolved

Although the court dismissed Ramsey’s federal TCPA claim, the litigation has not concluded.

Ramsey also asserted a claim under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, alleging conduct that he argued independently violated state consumer protection requirements.

The defendants maintained that the state-law claim depended on the TCPA allegations and argued that the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claim.

Ramsey argued that the court could retain jurisdiction and alternatively asserted that diversity jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.

Judge Hopkins reserved a decision on the OCSPA claim and granted Ramsey 21 days from the Sept. 29 order to amend his complaint to establish a basis for diversity jurisdiction.

The court’s ruling therefore resolves the federal autodialer claim in the defendants’ favor but leaves the state consumer protection claim pending a jurisdictional determination.

Implications for Debt Collection Agencies Using Predictive Dialers

The ruling provides additional guidance for accounts receivable management companies evaluating their dialing systems under the TCPA.

The decision confirms that automated calling functionality, including predictive dialing and sequential processing of stored contact lists, does not independently establish that equipment meets the federal ATDS definition.

For collection agencies, the distinction places particular importance on the technical capabilities of dialing platforms, the origin of telephone numbers, and how calling campaigns are generated.

The court’s analysis also demonstrates the importance of maintaining documentation explaining how dialing systems select, store, and process consumer telephone numbers.

However, the ruling does not eliminate other potential legal obligations associated with outbound collection calls. Agencies must continue evaluating applicable TCPA restrictions, state consumer protection laws, consent requirements, and other federal and state debt collection regulations.

The unresolved Ohio consumer protection claim also illustrates that a favorable determination under the TCPA’s autodialer provision does not necessarily dispose of other claims arising from the same collection activity.

For ARM professionals, Ramsey offers a significant example of how the Supreme Court’s Duguid standard continues to influence litigation involving predictive dialing systems and previously entered TCPA judgments.