The Post-McLaughlin State of TCPA Litigation: Do Not Call—But Can I Text?

Ashley R. Fickel
Ashley R. Fickel
Stinson LLP

Ashley R. Fickel is a Partner in the Los Angeles office of Stinson LLP, where he concentrates his practice on business litigation, real estate litigation, construction litigation, consumer class action defense, and data and private cybersecurity. Drawing on two decades of courtroom experience, he has represented financial institutions, automotive and other manufacturers, and a diverse group of businesses and individuals facing individual and class action claims involving consumer financial services, consumer fraud, privacy, products liability, catastrophic injury, and complex business disputes.

Maxwell Levins
Maxwell Levins
Stinson LLP

Maxwell Levins is an Associate with Stinson LLP in the firm’s business litigation group, where he represents national banks and other businesses in a range of commercial disputes, including those brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. His work focuses on protecting the interests of clients throughout all stages of litigation, from trial court discovery to state and federal appellate proceedings.

Live Video-Broadcast: September 24, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

Hundreds of Millions in TCPA Judgments and Settlements Before 2025 Would Be Worth Zero Dollars in 2026

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation is being reshaped due to a fundamental and deepening split across federal circuits following the Supreme Court’s 2024 and 2025 rulings in Loper-Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation, respectively.

The SCOTUS directive seems deceptively simple: district courts need to read and interpret the statutory text of the TCPA. The outcome thus far is that only the Seventh Circuit has clarity on whether a large percentage of TCPA claims, those brought under Section 227(c) of the TCPA for unsolicited text messages, can even survive a motion to dismiss. Not only is there a lack of consistency across federal jurisdictions at the pleadings stage, Loper-Bright, McLaughlin, and other recent decisions have caused drastic fluctuations to the settlement value and certifiability of TCPA class actions.

This program equips attorneys who evaluate and litigate TCPA matters with the practical tools they need at every stage of litigation. Attendees will receive tangible takeaways, including a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction forum selection map, a pleading framework for hostile circuits, and benchmarks for evaluating and communicating settlement leverage.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Loper-Bright and McLaughlin
    How the landmark rulings changed the way district courts must interpret the TCPA.
  • Forum Strategy
    Assessing the spectrum of post-McLaughlin case law from Steidinger to Howard.
  • Pleading Frameworks
    When to bring novel post-McLaughlin arguments and how to frame them by jurisdiction.
  • Discovery and Summary Judgment
    Bifurcation decisions and early summary judgment motions that directly impact class certification arguments.
  • Certification and Predominance
    How the consent-centered predominance battleground and Rule 23(a) factors develop across federal jurisdictions.
  • Settlement Value
    Benchmarks and McLaughlin-era factors for evaluating what TCPA cases should settle for.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: September 24, 2026

  • 1:00 pm – 3:10 pm Eastern
  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Central
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Mountain
  • 10:00 am – 12:10 pm Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Ashley R. Fickel, Partner | Stinson LLP

Ashley R. Fickel is a Partner in the Los Angeles office of Stinson LLP, where he concentrates his practice on business litigation, real estate litigation, construction litigation, consumer class action defense, and data and private cybersecurity. Drawing on two decades of courtroom experience, he has represented financial institutions, automotive and other manufacturers, and a diverse group of businesses and individuals facing individual and class action claims involving consumer financial services, consumer fraud, privacy, products liability, catastrophic injury, and complex business disputes.

  • Education & Credentials

Ashley earned his J.D., cum laude, from Pepperdine Caruso School of Law in 2004, where he was named to the Dean’s List and served on the Pepperdine Law Review. He received his B.A. from Westmont College in 1997 and is admitted to practice in California.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Ashley was nominated for the Los Angeles Business Journal’s “Leaders of Influence: Litigators & Trial Attorneys” award in 2023, named to the publication’s “Thriving in Their 40’s” list in 2022, and nominated for its “Leaders in Law” award in 2021. He was recognized in Southern California Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in General Litigation from 2009 to 2013 and from 2016 to 2020. He authored a chapter on consumer auto finance law in Practising Law Institute’s Consumer Financial Services Answer Book, and his recent commentary on litigation risk and consumer protection has appeared in Bloomberg Law, Law360, and the Los Angeles Daily Journal.

  • Professional Involvement

At Stinson, Ashley practices within the firm’s Business Litigation, Class Action, Cybersecurity & Data Privacy, Construction, Consumer Financial Services, and Automotive Finance groups. He also serves his community as a board member of the Santa Barbara Tennis Patrons.

  • Experience

Ashley has defended national banks, financial services companies, debt collectors, and other entities in putative class actions alleging “blast fax,” automated dialer, and related claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as well as unauthorized call recording and monitoring claims under California Penal Code sections 630 and 632. His consumer financial services work includes representing major debt collectors in individual and class cases under the FCRA and FDCPA, and representing mortgage servicers and lenders in foreclosure-related and loan modification litigation in state and federal court. He has also advised financial institutions on privacy issues arising under the GLBA and the CCPA.

 

Maxwell Levins, Associate | Stinson LLP

Maxwell Levins is an Associate with Stinson LLP in the firm’s business litigation group, where he represents national banks and other businesses in a range of commercial disputes, including those brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. His work focuses on protecting the interests of clients throughout all stages of litigation, from trial court discovery to state and federal appellate proceedings.

  • Education & Credentials

Maxwell graduated from the University of California, Irvine School of Law in 2023 after receiving his undergraduate degree in economics from the University of Southern California. He is admitted to practice in the state of California, Central District of California, Northern District of California, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Maxwell has briefed trial and appellate litigation matters across several federal jurisdictions. During law school, Maxwell was a finalist in both Moot Court and Mock Trial.

  • Professional Involvement

Raised in Kansas City and residing in Orange County, Maxwell is connected in his local and professional communities through national events with the LGBTQ+ Bar Association as well as local events with Orange County’s Association of Business Trial Lawyers and Orange County’s Lavender Bar Association. Maxwell’s pro bono practice includes assisting veterans in appealing the denial of their benefits claims.

  • Experience

Maxwell has litigated dozens of Telephone Consumer Protection Act matters from demand letters to post-certification briefing. His focus includes advising clients on preventing actionable claims and litigating the claims that can arise despite following best practices. Maxwell understands how to chart the right path forward to minimize TCPA exposure at all stages of litigation.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – Pleading and Forum Strategy for TCPA Text Message Do-Not-Call Claims | 1:00pm – 2:00pm

This session addresses the rapidly shifting pleading and forum strategy landscape for TCPA Do-Not-Call claims based on text messages, focusing on the deepening circuit split over whether text messages qualify as “calls” under Section 227(c) of the statute. Attorneys will learn how to evaluate forum options and make post-McLaughlin arguments on both sides in hostile jurisdictions. Participants will leave with a concrete pleading framework and a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction forum map applicable to active and prospective text-based TCPA litigation.

BREAK | 2:00pm – 2:10pm

SESSION 2 – Post-McLaughlin TCPA Class Certification Viability and Settlement Value | 2:10pm – 3:10pm

This session examines three variables that largely determine the value and viability of TCPA class actions across jurisdictions: the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance battleground, recent settlement benchmarks, and the advisability of summary judgment motions. Attorneys will leave with a working command of current TCPA circuit splits, certification strategies, and how to assess and communicate settlement leverage. The session is designed for attorneys who evaluate and/or litigate TCPA class actions.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 General Hours

Receive CLE credit in Florida via attorney submission.
Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars