NJ Judge Blocks Attempt to Paint Verification Texts as TCPA Violations

A New Jersey federal judge held that bare verification-code text messages are not “advertisements” or “telephone solicitations” under the TCPA and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, while also ordering him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned.

Case and posture

• The decision is from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Zelma v. Wonder Group Inc..

• The plaintiff, a frequent TCPA filer proceeding pro se, challenged two verification-code texts he received, trying to characterize them as unlawful telemarketing/advertising under the TCPA and as Do-Not-Call and opt-out–notice violations.

What the judge actually held

• The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice as to the Do-Not-Call (DNC) registry claim and the opt‑out notice claim, finding that the two verification texts could not plausibly be “telephone solicitations” or “unsolicited advertisements” as defined in the TCPA.

• The messages contained only verification codes, with no links, no product or service references, and no commercial language; under the Third Circuit’s Mauthe framework, that is not enough to qualify as advertising or solicitation.

• The judge rejected the plaintiff’s “trojan horse” theory (that the unexplained codes were a pretext to lure him to the sender’s site), noting that Mauthe had already warned that accepting such arguments would effectively turn “any message” from a company into an “advertisement.”

Sanctions angle

• Previously, the court had dismissed earlier versions of the complaint but gave leave to amend and spelled out what would be needed: specific facts showing the texts directly or indirectly informed the plaintiff that the sender sells something of value.

• In the amended complaint, the plaintiff instead doubled down on the same theory without factual support and added allegations the court found inaccurate; as a result, the court issued an order for the plaintiff to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11.

Practical takeaways for industry

• For senders: Non-promotional verification-code texts that lack links, product references, or sales language are strong candidates for early dismissal of TCPA DNC/advertising claims in the Third Circuit, especially when you can frame the issue under Mauthe.

• For plaintiffs: Courts in New Jersey are signaling low tolerance for creative re-labeling of purely functional security/verification traffic as “ads,” and repeated attempts to re-plead rejected theories can draw Rule 11 scrutiny.