If you dispute: how to contest a TCPA demand letter and what it takes

A dispute is a written response that says the claim fails and shows why. It is not a letter saying you disagree. The grounds that actually move a TCPA claim are narrow: you hold prior express written consent for the number, the calls did not come from you or anyone acting for you, the calls fall outside the four-year limitations period, or the facts do not meet the statute. If you have one of those, this path can end the matter or cut the number sharply. If you do not, it is a delay with a bill attached.

Grounds that work

Consent you can produce per number

For marketing calls or texts to a mobile number using an autodialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice, the FCC's rules at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 require prior express written consent. That means a record: the form or flow where this person gave this number, agreed to be contacted by your business by automated means, and the date and time it happened. A vendor's assurance that the list was opted in is not a record. If you can produce the record for a number, that number comes off the claim. Watch for a later STOP reply or do-not-call request, which ends the consent from that point.

The calls were not yours

Caller ID attribution goes wrong. If the calls in the letter came from a number or account you have never operated, say so and show it: your carrier account list, your dialer's outbound number inventory. Be careful with "it was our vendor". Calls a vendor made for you are, under FCC guidance since 2013 and the case law that followed, calls made on your behalf. That is not a dispute ground. It is a recovery claim against the vendor.

Out of time

The federal limitations period for a TCPA claim is four years from the call (28 U.S.C. § 1658). Calls older than that are not recoverable. Check each date in the list.

The facts do not fit the statute

Some examples. For a do-not-call claim under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), the recipient needs more than one call within a twelve-month period from or on behalf of the same entity. A single call does not support that count. A call that was informational rather than a solicitation is treated differently from a marketing call. Whether the dialer meets the autodialer definition the Supreme Court set in Facebook v. Duguid (2021) matters for the autodialer claims, though not for prerecorded-voice or do-not-call claims. These are fact questions, and the burden of showing them is on you.

Grounds that do not work

• "We only called a few people." Damages are per call, not per matter.
• "We stopped as soon as we got the letter." Stopping prevents new violations. It does not resolve the ones made.
• "The sender is not a law firm." A demand letter does not need a law firm behind it. The claim belongs to the person called, and unresolved matters get referred to counsel who file.
• "The list came from a reputable source." Who sold the list has no bearing on whether the person consented to hear from you.
• Anger. A response that calls the claim extortion gets filed and read out later.

What a dispute response contains

1. The matter reference and the date of the letter.
2. A statement that you are responding within the deadline and reserving all rights.
3. For each number or group of numbers, the ground and the document that supports it. Attach the consent record, the account inventory, or the date evidence.
4. The specific outcome you are asking for. Withdrawal, removal of listed numbers, or a revised figure.
5. A request for the sender's evidence for anything that remains.
6. No admissions about the rest of your calling programme. Answer the claim, not the industry.

What you will be asked to produce if it goes further

If the dispute does not resolve the matter and a complaint is filed, discovery follows. Expect requests for dialer logs, SMS platform exports, consent records, vendor contracts, DNC scrub records and the scripts used. The letter lists the calls the sender documented. Discovery covers every call the records show. That asymmetry is the reason a dispute with weak evidence usually ends in a settlement, later, at a higher total cost. Price that in before you choose this path.