Case Explained: COFFEY V. FAST EASY OFFER, LLC, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-04

Docket: 2:24-cv-02725-

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for failure to state a claim, holding that the plaintiff adequately pleaded that the defendant’s calls and text messages constituted “telephone solicitations.” The court applied the standard of review de novo, accepting all nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint as true. The court’s decision rested on the plain text of 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4), which defines a telephone solicitation as an initiation of a call or message “for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services.” The panel clarified that the statutory phrase “for the purpose of” modifies the “initiation” of the communication, not merely the content of the message itself. Consequently, the court determined that an explicit mention of a good, product, or service within the call or text is not required if the context implies such a purpose, consistent with the precedent set in *Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.*, 705 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2012). The court found that the plaintiff’s allegations—that the defendants initiated the messages to solicit the purchase of real estate brokerage services and that nine out of ten respondents became clients of those services—sufficiently established that the communications were initiated for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of services. The practical consequence of this ruling is that the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings, allowing the TCPA claims to proceed past the motion to dismiss stage rather than being terminated as they were below.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.