Kramer v. AUTOBYTEL, INC., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1165

Kramer, an Illinois resident, alleges Autobytel, B2Mobile, and LeadClick sent thousands of unauthorized text messages in violation of TCPA § 227.
Kramer received ten texts from SMS short code 77893, registered to B2Mobile, including ads for Autobytel-linked sites.
Kramer alleges third‑party lists supplied numbers for mass spam texting and that messages were sent using equipment capable of generating numbers.
Kramer never consented to receiving the messages and tried to opt out after receiving the first text.
After Autobytel's dismissal of individual claims, only B2Mobile and LeadClick remained as defendants and moved to dismiss the TCPA claims.
The court denied the motions to dismiss, finding the TCPA not unconstitutionally vague and the complaint adequately pleaded a TCPA claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TCPA is unconstitutionally vague as applied to text messaging.	Kramer argues TCPA lacks clear notice for text messages.	Defendants contend TCPA's consent standard is unclear for texts.	Constitutional challenge rejected; TCPA not vague.
Whether Kramer's complaint sufficiently pleads a TCPA claim.	Complaint plausibly shows use of an autodialer and unauthorized texts.	Allegations are conclusory; insufficient detail on involvement.	Complaint adequately pleads plausible TCPA claim.
Whether plaintiffs must plead precise details of every text message at this stage.	Not required for mass marketing TCPA action; notice pleading suffices.	Need specifics for each message.	Not required; general allegations acceptable at pleading stage.

Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009) (text messages counted as calls under TCPA; express consent clarified)
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (U.S. 2008) (due process vagueness standard; notice required but not perfect clarity)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard; no bare legal conclusions)