1:24-cv-04365
N.D. Ga.Aug 15, 2025Background
- Ethan Radvansky filed a putative class action under the TCPA against Bubolo Medical, alleging unsolicited marketing text messages despite being on the national do-not-call registry.
- Radvansky uses his cellular telephone as his personal, residential line (not for business purposes).
- Bubolo Medical moved to dismiss, arguing TCPA protections do not extend to cellular users, only to landline residential subscribers.
- The Supreme Court's recent decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic clarified that courts are not bound by FCC interpretation of TCPA but must determine independently whether cell users qualify as residential subscribers.
- The FCC previously deemed cell users as residential subscribers, but some district courts outside the Eleventh Circuit disagreed.
- The court ruled after considering recent precedent and the pleadings in the light most favorable to Radvansky, denying dismissal and a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TCPA's protections for 'residential subscribers' include cell phones used for residential (non-business) purposes | Radvansky is a 'residential subscriber' because he uses his cell as his home phone | TCPA protects only landline residential subscribers; not cell users | TCPA covers cell phones used as residential lines |
| Effect of FCC interpretation after McLaughlin decision | FCC's 2003 order includes cell users as residential subscribers | After McLaughlin, courts need not follow FCC's view | Courts must decide de novo, but present facts suffice for claim |
| Sufficiency of plaintiff's allegations about phone use | Complaint alleges facts showing phone is used for personal, residential purposes | Complaint fails to show number is 'residential' | Allegations suffice for purposes of pleading |
| Whether to stay proceedings post-McLaughlin | Opposed stay since Supreme Court decided McLaughlin | Sought stay pending decision | Stay request is moot due to Supreme Court decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (articulates the standard for facial plausibility in pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (sets the plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
- McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025) (holds courts are not bound by FCC's interpretation under the Hobbs Act)