DNC Claim Allowed to Proceed While Court Refuses to Credit Deposi

Some legal headlines sound like they were written by a caffeinated fax machine, and this one definitely qualifies. But underneath the slightly clipped title is a very modern lawsuit with a very modern problem: what happens when a business makes marketing calls to a phone number that looks personal, acts personal, lives on the Do Not Call Registry, but also gets used for work? Welcome to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, where one smartphone can be a family line, a work line, a side-hustle line, and a litigation exhibit before lunch.

The short version is this: a federal court allowed a TCPA do-not-call claim to move forward against Cyflare Security, even though the defendant argued the plaintiff’s number was really a business line. Why did the court refuse to shut the case down? Because the company leaned on deposition testimony from another lawsuit, and at the motion-to-dismiss stage, courts generally do not get to rummage through outside evidence unless it is properly part of the pleadings or public record. In plain American English: the defendant may have had a potentially useful argument, but it brought the wrong kind of material to the wrong procedural party.

That makes this case more than a niche telecom squabble. It is a reminder that TCPA litigation often turns on two separate questions that businesses blur together at their peril: first, what the law ultimately allows; and second, what a court can consider at a specific stage of the case. Those are not the same thing. A company can have a decent merits argument and still lose a motion to dismiss. Civil procedure is not glamorous, but it can be the whole ballgame.

The Headline, Decoded

“DNC claim allowed to proceed” means the plaintiff’s core do-not-call theory survived the defendant’s effort to dismiss it early. The claim was not proven. It was not blessed. It was not gift-wrapped with a bow. It simply survived long enough to keep living. In federal court, that matters. Surviving a motion to dismiss means the plaintiff has alleged enough facts to make the claim plausible, which opens the door to discovery, more briefing, and potentially much more expensive headaches.

“Court refuses to credit deposti”which plainly refers to deposition testimonypoints to the procedural punchline. The defendant argued that the phone number at issue was used so heavily for work that the line should be treated as a business number rather than a protected residential subscriber line under the TCPA’s do-not-call rules. The court did not say that theory was impossible. Instead, it said the defendant could not prove it at this stage with outside deposition testimony that was not properly part of the pleadings.

And that distinction is why this ruling deserves attention from sales teams, compliance officers, marketing leaders, and defense lawyers alike. A case can survive even when the defendant believes the facts will eventually favor it. Timing matters. Record-building matters. And in TCPA land, assumptions are expensive.

What Happened in the Cyflare Dispute

According to the complaint as described by the court, the plaintiff said he used the number only for personal residential purposes and had kept it on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2007. He alleged that a Cyflare employee called him in February 2025 to pitch cybersecurity products, that he said he was not interested and identified the number as personal, and that the same employee called again in March 2025. That sequence matters because the TCPA’s do-not-call private right of action generally requires more than one call within a 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity.

Cyflare pushed back with a smarter-than-it-looked argument. The company pointed to deposition testimony from a prior case involving the same plaintiff and argued that the number was not purely personal at all. According to the defense, the plaintiff used the phone extensively for work and even received an employer stipend for it. In other words, Cyflare tried to say: this is not really a protected residential line, so the do-not-call theory should die immediately.

That argument has real-world force. The National Do Not Call Registry is meant for personal numbers, not business phone numbers. The FTC’s public-facing guidance says that directly. So if a number is truly a business line, the plaintiff’s path gets steeper. But “truly a business line” is where the neat little legal box starts to wobble.

Why Mixed-Use Phones Cause So Much Trouble

Back when “home phone” meant a beige landline attached to a kitchen wall, this issue was easier. Today, one cell phone can handle dinner plans, a school pickup text, a Slack message, a sales call, a bank alert, and a doctor’s office callback in the same hour. That reality has forced courts and regulators to wrestle with what “residential” even means in the smartphone era.

The FCC recognized that problem years ago. In its 2003 TCPA order, the agency said wireless subscribers who place their numbers on the national do-not-call list are presumed to be residential subscribers, while also acknowledging that enforcement may require a closer factual look in particular cases. The FCC also declined to create a blanket exemption for home-based businesses. Translation: using a number for work does not automatically strip away do-not-call protection.

The Ninth Circuit pushed that point further in Chennette v. Porch.com. That court said mixed-use cell phones are presumptively residential for TCPA do-not-call purposes, but the presumption is rebuttable. It laid out practical factors, including how the number is held out to the public, whether it is registered as residential or business, how much it is used for business, who pays the bill, and how a reasonable observer would view the line. That is not a bright-line test. It is a totality-of-the-circumstances test, which is lawyer-speak for “please bring documents and prepare for fighting.”

So yes, a company may still argue that a phone is really a business line. But no, the existence of some business use does not automatically win the day. That gray area is exactly why defendants who want an early dismissal often find themselves running into procedural walls.

Why the Court Refused to Credit the Deposition Testimony

This is the part that makes law students reach for highlighters and business defendants reach for antacids. On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court generally focuses on the complaint itself, documents embraced by the pleadings, and certain public materials. It is not supposed to weigh outside evidence the way it would at summary judgment. The Cyflare court leaned on that familiar rule and declined to consider deposition testimony from outside the complaint.

That does not mean the testimony was fake. It does not mean it was irrelevant. It means it was procedurally out of place. The court even cited another Missouri case involving the same plaintiff, Koeller v. Seemplicity Security, where similar deposition material was also not credited at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The message is pretty clear: if the residential-versus-business question depends on factual nuance, courts are often reluctant to decide it based only on outside evidence attached to a dismissal motion.

There is a practical reason for that caution. Whether a phone is residential in this context can be fact-intensive. One person’s “business phone” may be another person’s regular cell number with a few work texts and a reimbursement line on a pay stub. A court staring only at a complaint and a deposition excerpt is looking at the legal equivalent of a movie trailer and being asked to review the whole film.

For defendants, this ruling is a warning label. If your best defense depends on factual development, you may need discovery and a later-stage motion rather than an early knockout punch. Swinging too soon can leave the claim standing and the meter still running.

Why the DNC Claim Survived

Once the court set aside the outside deposition material, the complaint itself was enough. The plaintiff alleged that his number was personal and residential, that it was on the Do Not Call Registry, that the defendant made repeated solicitation calls, and that at least one caller was told the number was personal. For pleading purposes, those allegations were sufficient to state a plausible TCPA do-not-call claim.

That is not a final determination that the plaintiff will win. It simply means the complaint cleared the plausibility bar. At a later stage, the defendant may still try to prove that the line functioned as a business number under the fact-specific framework courts use in mixed-use cases. But the judge was not willing to short-circuit the case before discovery based on materials outside the pleadings.

This is one of those moments where legal outcomes sound more dramatic than they are. “Allowed to proceed” is not a victory parade. It is a receipt. The case stays alive, and the parties keep spending money.

Why the Court Would Not Strike Treble Damages

Cyflare also tried to knock out the request for treble damages by arguing the plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged a knowing or willful violation. The court said, essentially, nice try, wrong procedural vehicle. Treble damages are a remedy, not a standalone claim. Under the TCPA, a prevailing plaintiff may seek $500 per violation, and the court can increase that amount up to three times if the violation was willful or knowing.

That matters because businesses sometimes treat damages allegations like separate causes of action. Courts often do not. If the complaint states a viable underlying claim, the fight over enhanced damages usually comes later, when the record is fuller and the court can assess what the defendant knew, what it ignored, and whether its conduct crossed from sloppy into willful.

For compliance professionals, this is the scary part wrapped in legal packaging. An early motion may fail to eliminate enhanced-damages exposure even if the defense believes the plaintiff’s allegations are thin. That means a case can move into discovery with the possibility of bigger numbers still hovering in the background like a thundercloud in a suit.

Why Injunctive Relief Got Rejected

The plaintiff did not win across the board. The court dismissed the request for injunctive relief, and it did so for a classic standing reason. Under City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, past harm by itself generally does not establish the real and immediate threat of future harm required for injunctions. In other words, federal courts do not hand out forward-looking orders just because something illegal allegedly happened before. The plaintiff has to show a sufficiently concrete and impending future threat.

The Cyflare court said the allegations were too backward-looking. Two calls over nearly three months and one older complaint from another consumer were not enough to show a real and immediate threat that the plaintiff himself would likely be called again. The ruling echoes other TCPA decisions, including Taylor v. Kin Insurance, where courts have treated past telemarketing violations as insufficient on their own to justify equitable relief.

This part of the opinion is a useful corrective to the more dramatic headline. The plaintiff kept the damages claim alive, but the forward-looking injunction was not supported on the pleadings. So the court was not throwing open every door. It was drawing lines: yes to the damages case continuing, no to an injunction based on speculative future harm.

What the Decision Means for B2B Calling Campaigns

If your company sells into businesses and your marketing team thinks that fact alone is a magic TCPA shield, this case should gently but firmly remove that fantasy from the room. The problem is not just who you intended to call. The problem is what number you actually called, how it is used, whether it is on the Registry, what facts you can prove, and when you can properly present those facts.

Modern B2B outreach often hits mobile phones. Lots of mobile phones. Sales reps find numbers through databases, public profiles, lead platforms, and enrichment tools that promise precision with the confidence of a weather app five days out. But a mobile number attached to a professional profile can still be a residential line for TCPA purposes. If it is registered on the Do Not Call Registry, the risk does not vanish just because the call was aimed at someone’s job title.

That does not mean all B2B cold calling is doomed. It means lazy assumptions are. Companies need better list hygiene, clearer consent records, stronger internal do-not-call procedures, and realistic training for outbound teams. “But we thought it was a business line” is not a compliance program. It is a sentence people say right before discovery starts.

Compliance Lessons Hiding in Plain Sight

First, scrub numbers against the National Do Not Call Registry and maintain internal do-not-call protocols with actual discipline. Not ceremonial discipline. Not binder-on-a-shelf discipline. Real discipline. The FTC’s guidance makes clear that legitimate sellers are expected to remove registered numbers from telemarketing lists, and consumers can register both home and cell numbers.

Second, do not assume that an employee reimbursement, a public-facing profile, or occasional work use converts a mobile number into a pure business line. Those facts may help rebut a residential presumption later, but they are not always silver bullets at the pleadings stage.

Third, train sales staff to honor opt-out requests immediately and document them carefully. If a consumer says, “This is my personal number, do not call me again,” that statement should not float off into the void like a forgotten webinar registration. It should trigger an actual suppression step.

Fourth, think procedurally. When outside evidence is central to your defense, ask whether you are really making a motion-to-dismiss argument or trying to smuggle a summary-judgment fight into earlier motion practice. Courts tend to notice.

Examples That Make the Gray Area Easier to See

Imagine a self-employed contractor who uses one cell number for family calls, school alerts, doctor appointments, and customer callbacks. That number appears on a website, but it is also the same number registered on the Do Not Call Registry. Under modern TCPA analysis, that line may still be treated as residential or at least presumptively residential.

Now imagine a corporate employee who uses a personal smartphone for work chats and gets a monthly stipend. The phone is never registered as a dedicated business line, and it still functions as the person’s main private device. A defendant may argue the stipend and work use show the number is business-related. A plaintiff may respond that the number remains a personal, mixed-use line entitled to protection. That is exactly the kind of factual tug-of-war courts do not always resolve on the pleadings.

Finally, imagine a company that buys a “business contacts only” list from a vendor and treats that label like gospel. The problem is that data labels are not legal conclusions. If the list contains registered mobile numbers that are actually used as residential lines, a confident sales deck can become an expensive exhibit.

Experiences From the Real-World Side of DNC Disputes

In the real world, disputes like this rarely begin with dramatic courtroom music. They start with annoyance. A consumer gets one marketing call and brushes it off. Then a second call lands. Maybe the caller is polite, maybe the pitch is robotic, maybe the timing is awful. Maybe the person is between meetings, picking up groceries, or trying to figure out why the family group chat has suddenly become a tactical argument about dinner. Whatever the moment, the experience feels personal because the device is personal. That is one reason these cases keep showing up: to the person receiving the call, the privacy invasion does not feel theoretical. It feels like interruption.

From the business side, the experience can be surprisingly chaotic. Sales teams often do not think in legal categories like “residential subscriber” or “mixed-use presumption.” They think in workflows: list, dialer, cadence, script, follow-up, pipeline. A rep sees a mobile number tied to a professional role and naturally assumes it is fair game. A manager sees a lead database sold as B2B-compliant and assumes the vendor already did the hard part. Legal later discovers that everyone was operating on assumption fumes.

Compliance teams, meanwhile, tend to live in a different emotional zip code. They know that one bad assumption can multiply across thousands of calls. Their experience is part detective work, part cleanup duty, and part internal diplomacy. They have to explain why a number that “looked business” might still be protected, why opt-out logging must be immediate, why a seller cannot simply shrug and blame the vendor, and why litigation spend is a terrible substitute for list hygiene. It is not glamorous work, but it is the work that often determines whether a company faces a mild problem or a full-blown mess.

Defense lawyers experience these cases as battles over framing. They may honestly believe the plaintiff’s number is too business-oriented to qualify for residential protection. But they also know that belief is not enough. They need admissible facts, the right procedural posture, and a judge willing to decide the issue on the existing record. When that does not line up, the case survives, not because the defense has no argument, but because the argument arrived wearing the wrong procedural shoes.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers, by contrast, often experience these disputes as examples of how modern telemarketing practices run ahead of old compliance habits. They see a familiar pattern: repeated contact, a registered number, a consumer who says stop, and a business that treats mobile outreach like a volume game. From that perspective, the case is not about one awkward call. It is about systems that scale first and ask permission later.

And then there is the judge’s experience, which is usually the least dramatic and the most important. Judges are not there to reward clever narratives from either side. They are there to decide what the complaint plausibly alleges, what the record actually contains, and what can fairly be resolved now versus later. In a case like this, that means resisting the temptation to settle messy factual questions too early. It also means trimming remedies that the pleadings do not support, like speculative injunctive relief. The result can look split, because it is split: part of the case lives, part of it goes, and everyone keeps working.

That is what makes this topic so relatable beyond the legal niche. It is about the collision between ordinary phone use and industrial-scale outreach. It is about how one device now serves as home phone, office phone, emergency line, and digital front door. And it is about what happens when the law tries to sort that reality into old categories without losing sight of actual consumer privacy. There is no neat bow on that problem yet. There is just more litigation, better compliance for the smart players, and more caution for everyone else.

Conclusion

The Cyflare ruling is a sharp reminder that TCPA do-not-call litigation is not just about whether a number had some business use. It is about whether the plaintiff plausibly alleged a protected residential line, whether the defendant can properly introduce contrary evidence at the stage it chose, and whether the requested remedies line up with the facts pleaded. Here, the court let the damages-centered DNC claim move forward, refused to rely on outside deposition testimony at the motion-to-dismiss phase, left the possibility of treble damages intact, and rejected injunctive relief for lack of a sufficiently immediate future threat.

For businesses, the takeaway is simple even if the doctrine is not: do not bet your compliance strategy on the hope that a mixed-use mobile number will automatically be treated as a business line. Courts have shown plenty of willingness to look harder, later, and at greater cost. If your outbound calling program depends on that gamble, the house may not be the only one that wins.