NOT MARKETING: Court Reminds TCPAWorld that Debt Collection Just Doesn’t Trigger the DNC Rules

Debt collection isn’t marketing. The end.

In Nickson v. TrueAccord Corp. 2026 WL 2979443 (D. Md. Oct. 5, 2026) Plaintiff argued he received unwanted debt collection calls from defendant he did not consent to. So he sued TrueAccord was sued for violating both the regulated technology portion of the TCPA and the DNC portion. But he lost both claims.

As to the ATDS component the defendant properly introduced evidence that its dialer “does not ‘create, derive or independently store telephone numbers’ and that ‘[t]he Platform does not permit the sending of messages using random number generation or sequential number generation functionality.'” Nice work there– the Defendant properly addressed both the “produce” and the “store” prong of the ATDS formulation with its record evidence. That left Plaintiff nowhere to hide and his ATDS claim failed.

On the DNC claim the analysis was even more straightforward. The DNC rules only apply to solicitations– and a solicitation “is a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services…”

But the calls at issue were debt collection calls–made for the purpose of making plaintiff pay for his purchase or rental of property, goods, or services. But that is not the same.

Because Plaintiff could not allege a marketing purpose to the debt collection calls the DNC claim automatically failed.

This is, without question, the proper result– even if it means debt collectors can hound you with debt collection calls without your consent under the TCPA. But that is where the FDCPA’s rules come in to protect consumers, at least in theory.