A Florida Judge Found No Private Suit Over the DNC Registry Rule. Read the Rest

What Internicola v. MortgagePros decided#

Daniel Internicola put his cell number on the National Do Not Call Registry in 2008. In April 2025 he hired MortgagePros to refinance, then ended the engagement on a call on 1 July 2025 and withdrew consent to contact.

His amended complaint alleges three calls that day, four texts on 3 July, two texts and three calls on 7 July, a text on 9 July and two more after he sued.

He pleaded a Registry count under 64.1200(c) and an internal-list count under 64.1200(d).

• Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe ruled on 24 September 2026 (No. 6:25-cv-01613, Dkt. 53, read 13 Oct 2026). Both counts were dismissed with leave to amend by 2 October.
• Texts are not telephone calls under 227(c)(5). Nobody objected to that part of the magistrate judge's report, so the court adopted it.
• The Registry rule, 64.1200(c), carries no private right of action under 227(c)(5). This is the new part.
• The internal-list count was dismissed only with leave to amend. The defense that three business days was fast enough was deferred until he repleads.

Why a 1992 deadline sinks the 2003 Registry rule#

Section 227(c)(5) lets a person sue over repeat calls in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection. Section 227(c)(2) says that rulemaking shall conclude within 9 months of 20 December 1991.

The FCC's 1992 rules created no national list. They made telemarketers keep their own do-not-call lists. The Registry came in 2003, after the FTC acted and Congress passed the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act.

Judge Moe read the two provisions together. A rule prescribed in 2003 was not prescribed under 227(c), so 227(c)(5) does not reach it. Section 227(b) has no deadline, which the order used as the contrast.

• The order rests on Alexander v. Sandoval (2001): private rights of action must be created by Congress, and courts may not create one however desirable it seems.
• MortgagePros argued the 2003 Act, not the TCPA, was the source of the Registry rule. The court did not need to decide what else that Act allows.

The magistrate judge had recommended the opposite#

Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price's report of 10 June 2026 (Dkt. 36) would have kept the Registry count. It found no case law for the defense and none saying the rule came from the 2003 Act instead of 227(c).

The report cited Cordoba v. DIRECTV (11th Cir. 2019), which ties both the national list and internal lists to 227(c), plus district rulings such as Shelton v. Fast Advance Funding (E.D. Pa. 2019, aff'd 3d Cir. 2020).

Judge Moe sustained MortgagePros's objection anyway. One district judge's order binds no other judge, including others in the Middle District of Florida.

• TCPAWorld's 9 Oct 2026 roundup places Internicola at the most extreme end of this year's Do Not Call rulings (tcpaworld.com, read 13 Oct 2026).
• CourtListener lists reconsideration or clarification motions filed on 29 and 30 September and an order on 30 September. The text of those entries is not posted (checked 13 Oct 2026).

What is left open: your own do-not-call list#

The internal-list duty dates to the 1992 rulemaking the court described, then numbered 64.1200(e)(2). The order left that count open to replead on the calls, and told him to plead the 1 July sequence clearly.

The rule bars telemarketing calls to a residential subscriber unless you have procedures for a list of people who ask you to stop. Its minimum standards are short and specific (eCFR text, read 13 Oct 2026).

Ten business days is a ceiling, not a target#

MortgagePros argued it stopped in time: the last call came on 7 July, three business days after the 1 July request. The report noted it doubted he would win on that, but declined to decide it on the pleadings.

The report quoted Lourie v. Papa John's (N.D. Ga. 2024): the 10-day text sets a period outside of which compliance is unreasonable as a matter of law, not a window inside which it is always reasonable.

Judge Moe kept that ruling and told Internicola to say when the three 1 July calls came relative to his request. The rule asks you to record the request at the time it is made, so same-day calls get scrutinized.

The next argument targets the 10-day and 5-year rules#

MortgagePros also argued, in a footnote, that the FCC had no authority to add the 10-business-day limit after the 1992 rule. The magistrate judge found that argument waived as underdeveloped.

MortgagePros objected that it was not perfunctory and extended it to the 5-year rule (Dkt. 51). The order adopted the report's section on the internal-list count, so the argument was never decided on the merits here.

Expect other defendants to brief it in full. Do not build your process on it winning, because the same rule's written policy and training duties would still apply.

What changes for a B2B outbound team#

Very little in practice. Internicola removes one federal claim in one courtroom. The claim it left open to replead turns on what happens in the hours after someone says stop.

• Keep scrubbing against the Registry. The ruling binds no other court, reconsideration was filed, and contrary district rulings stand.
• Suppress at the moment of the request, not at the next sync. Internicola's three same-day calls are the facts the court asked him to spell out.
• Keep the written policy and training records 64.1200(d) asks for. The safe harbor paperwork is covered at /blog/dnc-safe-harbor-training-records.
• Check state law by recipient. Florida's statute names text messages, though its private action covers sales of consumer goods or services, not most B2B pitches. Texas is at /blog/texas-sb-140-texting-b2b-prospects.
• Know which courts treat texts as calls before you rely on that defense. The split is mapped at /blog/are-texts-calls-tcpa-dnc-map.

Where Blue Reacher sits in this#

Blue Reacher sends over iMessage, so no A2P registration is required. That is a carrier-registration fact, and it changes nothing about consent law or the do-not-call rules.

Messages send from your CRM, so the reply and the opt-out land on the same contact record your suppression list already reads from.

We are a vendor in this category. Nothing here is legal advice, and every citation is dated so your counsel can check it.

• Pacing is published: no total daily message cap, replies are never metered, and new conversations pace at 50 opted-in or 30 cold new contacts per line per day.

Frequently asked questions