Feature Articles

In today’s regulatory environment, “wrong number” is no longer a minor operational issue, it has become a litigation trigger.

Across the Energy marketplace, we continue to see active class litigation filings centered on calls and text messages placed to reassigned numbers. Several of these cases have resulted in significant settlements, while others remain in active litigation, reinforcing a clear message to executive leadership; reassigned number exposure is real, expensive and entirely preventable.

Why Reassigned Numbers Matter More Than Ever

A reassigned number occurs when a wireless number is permanently disconnected from one consumer and later reassigned by the carrier to a new subscriber.

From a compliance perspective, this creates a serious risk:

• Your records may reflect valid prior express consent &
• Your CRM may show an existing customer relationship.
• Your dialer may even treat that number as approved for outreach.

BUT, if that number has been reassigned, that consent no longer belongs to the original subscriber or customer that provided consent.  In fact, you have reached a “wrong party”.

Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), calling or texting a reassigned number, even unknowingly, can trigger statutory damages of $500 to $1500 per call or text.  In a high- volume retail energy environment that exposure scales quickly.

And the Plaintiff’s firms know it.

The Reassigned Number Database (RND) is a Critical Compliance Tool

The Reassigned Number Database (RND) was established under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), FCC 18-177, ¶ 34-47 to allow businesses to verify whether a telephone number has been permanently disconnected and potentially reassigned.  More importantly, the RND provides a statutory safe harbor, (FCC 18-177, ¶40-44).  See: FCC-18-177A1.pdf.

If a business:

1. Queries on the database prior to placing a call or text, and
2. Relies on a “No” response indicating the number has not been reassigned,

The business may qualify for protection from TCPA liability for calls made in reliance on that response.

The safe harbor is not theoretical. It is a tangible defensive strategy and one that demonstrates proactive compliance and reasonable reliance on a government- authorized database.

What We Are Seeing in Retail Energy Litigation

Recent retail energy class action cases alleging wrong number and wrong party no consent violations share common themes:

• Failure to scrub legacy lists/databases against the RND.
• Over-reliance on stale consent records
• Lack of documented RND query procedures
• No enterprise-wide reassignment governance policy

Executives must understand courts and plaintiffs increasingly expect companies to utilize available compliance tools. The use of the RND is no longer optional best practice, it is becoming an expected operational control, just like Do Not Call (DNC).

Best Practices for Retail Energy Suppliers

To reduce the reassigned- number exposure, organizations should:

• Integrate RND queries into pre-call and pre-text workflows
• Scrub legacy data and customer databases on a recurring cadence
• Align dialer controls with reassignment verification logic
• Document reliance procedures for safe harbor eligibility
• Extend requirements to all third-party vendors and TPVs
• Incorporate reassignment controls into compliance audits

The key is documentation and consistency.

A Strategic Imperative for 2026 and Beyond

It is not too late to get started, with heightened scrutiny around telemarketing compliance, including revocation rules, reassigned number exposure and state level telemarketing expansions, retail energy suppliers must adopt a centralized, defensible compliance posture.

Reassigned number risk is one of the few TCPA exposures where a clear preventative database exists. The RND.

The question is not whether reassigned numbers will appear in your data.

They will.

The question is whether your organization can demonstrate that it took reasonable proactive steps to identify and remove them.