Feature Articles

As discussed in our recent January Compliance Alert posted in Magnifyi, on December 2, 2025, the first litigation tied to the statute (TX SB140) was filed: Callier v Holistic Choice Labs LLC in the District Court for the Western District of Texas.  The filing is a clear signal that plaintiffs are now testing the law in court, particularly as it applies to marketing calls and text messages. This is exactly what we have seen with the Reassigned Number Database (RND) since its availability, and it is now followed by numerous RND litigation cases in which plaintiffs have tested the claims in court.

Since becoming effective on September 1, 2025, the statute’s interpretation has been marked by significant uncertainty, especially regarding registration requirements and the evaluation of consent-driven programs.  Although the Texas Attorney General has sought to bring clarity to these issues with the stipulated order entered on November 17, 2025, indicating that this statute does not apply if you have consent.  However, the filing of this lawsuit reinforces an important lesson and underscores a key reality for executive leadership: regulatory ambiguity creates litigation opportunity.

Texas Senate Bill 140 (SB 140) has become an important inflection point for retail energy providers (REPs) marketing to Texas consumers. What initially caused uncertainty around text-message outreach and telemarketing obligations has now evolved into a clearer, but more risk-sensitive environment shaped by enforcement posture and emerging litigation.

To Register or not?

The cost to register as a telemarketer in the State of Texas annually is far less than defending your company in litigation.

Why this Matters at the Executive Level

For organizations that market to Texas consumers, especially those using SMS, outbound calling or third-party vendors, this case represents more than a single claim. It highlights where risk is most likely to surface:

• When Correct consent and proof are not front and center.
• Vendor and affiliate activity can create enterprise-level exposure.
• Documentation gaps are increasingly difficult to defend once challenged.
• State law claims are being layered on top of Federal TCPA claims.

Executive Takeaway

This recent litigation development marks a transition from “How does the law apply?” to “Can we defend our program if challenged?” C-Suite leaders and executives should view this as an opportunity to validate consent practices, vendor governance, and compliance controls before litigation becomes a recurring operational distraction.

This content was created for informational purposes only; the information herein is not intended to be legal advice; anyone reading this should not act, or refrain from acting, upon any of the information herein without consulting an attorney.