One Text or Two? A Colorado Court Let a Do Not Call Claim Go Forward
A Colorado federal court refused to dismiss a TCPA Do Not Call claim over a 227-character text that the plaintiff’s phone bill showed as two messages. Here’s what the October 2025 order says, and what it leaves undecided.
What was the dispute in Connor v. ServiceQuick?
The case is Connor v. ServiceQuick Inc., No. 1:24-cv-02286-CNS-NRN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. According to the court’s October 8, 2025 order, the plaintiff alleges he received two text messages while his number was on the national Do Not Call registry. The defendants are ServiceQuik Inc., which does business as Zing Business Management Software, and Woosender, Inc. (The caption spells the first name “ServiceQuick” and the order’s text spells it “ServiceQuik.”)
The claim rests on a part of the TCPA that lets a person sue over “more than one telephone call within any 12-month period” by or for the same entity, when the number is on the registry. The FCC treats text messages as calls. So the count matters: one text isn’t enough, two may be.
ServiceQuik argued the plaintiff got one message, not two. In a footnote quoting its motion, it explained that a message over 160 characters is split into segments by phones and networks, then put back together so the reader sees one continuous message. The plaintiff pointed to his phone bill, which reflects two.
What did the court decide?
The court said the plaintiff’s allegations, backed by an excerpt from his phone records showing two messages, were enough to proceed. A screenshot showing one continuous message did not “utterly contradict” that, given the complexity of the technology behind the scenes.
ServiceQuik said the number was listed online as a business line. The court called that a factual dispute, not a legal one, and noted the plaintiff alleges personal and household use.
Woosender argued ServiceQuik sent the texts. The court found the allegations enough to plead that Woosender directly initiated them: that they were sent through its platform and that it did more than provide software.
This was a ruling on motions to dismiss. At that stage a court accepts the plaintiff’s facts as true. The order does not find that any text violated the TCPA, that a message over 160 characters always counts as two, or that any company is liable. The order itself says there are “several factual disputes to be addressed during discovery.” As of November 3, 2026, we have not confirmed what has happened in the case since that order.
The platform piece is worth watching. The court looked at what a platform allegedly did, not just what it’s called. Companies that send texts through a messaging provider may want to ask their attorney how message length, segments and carrier records are counted, and who is treated as the sender. This is one district court order at an early stage, so it’s a data point and not a rule.
Frequently asked questions
Does a text over 160 characters count as two messages under the TCPA?
This order doesn’t answer that. The court said the plaintiff’s allegation of two messages, supported by billing records, was enough to survive a motion to dismiss. Whether it counts as two is a question for later in the case.
Can a texting platform be sued under the TCPA?
In this case, the court found the allegations enough to plead that the platform directly initiated the texts. That’s a pleading-stage ruling about what the plaintiff alleges, not a finding about the platform’s conduct.
Curious how a consent record works?
ExpressConsent records exactly what a person saw when they agreed to marketing calls or texts, then stores it as a Certified Digital Record. Our guide covers what goes into one, and what it can’t do.
Read the guideTCPA Today is an independent news and educational resource powered by ExpressConsent.
More from TCPA Today: a $4 million TCPA settlement notice and the FCC’s new opt-out rules.
Sources
- Order, Connor v. ServiceQuick Inc., No. 1:24-cv-02286-CNS-NRN (D. Colo. Oct. 8, 2025), Doc. 69
- 47 U.S.C. § 227, Cornell Legal Information Institute
- Commentary (not quoted): TCPA.com, Nov. 2, 2026
Last updated: November 3, 2026. Case status after the October 2025 order not confirmed.
Disclaimer: TCPA Today is an independent news and educational resource powered by ExpressConsent. This post is general information and is not legal advice. Allegations in legal proceedings are not findings of wrongdoing unless established by a court.
