Section 227(c) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits any person from making or transmitting a “telephone solicitation” to any number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Section 227(a)(4) of the TCPA defines "telephone solicitation” as "the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services."
While many commercial messages fall neatly within this statutory definition, others do not.
A dispositive question that has arisen in recent TCPA litigation is whether a text message offering to purchase a property falls within this definition—that is, whether the message "encourages" the recipient to make a purchase or instead constitutes a simple offer to acquire something from the recipient.
Recent TCPA Court Decisions
As of January 2026, multiple federal district courts have reached consistent conclusions that unsolicited text messages offering to purchase property are not "telephone solicitations" as defined by the TCPA.
Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer, LLC (District of Arizona, June 2025) provides the most comprehensive recent analysis. The court held that text messages asking whether the recipient had "given up on selling [their] property" were not telephone solicitations because they did not offer to sell or rent anything to the recipient. Even though the defendant would profit from an ultimate sale of the property through an "effective fee" deducted from the offer price, the court explained that the relevant statutory distinction is between buying activity and selling activity. In this case, the court determined that the defendant was attempting to acquire property from the recipient, not encouraging the recipient to purchase goods or services from the defendant.
Aussieker v. Aghazadeh (Eastern District of California, July 2025) followed Coffey's reasoning. In that case, the court explicitly stated: "An offer to buy simply does not fall within the statutory definition of 'solicitation' because it is not a communication 'for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services'...Unsolicited offers to buy may indeed be as unwelcome and intrusive as are unsolicited offers of property, goods or services for sale—but Congress addressed only the latter problem in the TCPA."
Hunsinger v. Offer, LLC (Northern District of Texas, 2022) and Jance v. Homerun Offer, LLC (District of Arizona, 2021) similarly held that text messages and calls offering to purchase the recipient's home were not telephone solicitations under the TCPA, as the statutory definition does not encompass scenarios in which "the caller offers to buy something from the recipient of the call."
While the cases above seem to support the general proposition that purchase offers are not “solicitations,” other court decisions have carved out an important exception: when a text message offering to purchase property is coupled with an offer to provide services for an effective fee, it can constitute a solicitation.
For example, in McMorroe v. Core Properties, LLC (Eastern District of Missouri, December 2023) resulted in summary judgment against the defendant, with the court finding that text messages offering to purchase the plaintiff's home were actually solicitations because the purchase offer was coupled an offer to provide a title company to effectuate the purchase for an effective fee. The court viewed the additional services to facilitate the transaction as akin to services provided by real estate agents—the "effective fee" being either the revenue collected from resale at a higher price or fees charged for assignment of the contract.
Likewise, in Eagle v. GVG Capital, LLC (Western District of Missouri, January 2023) and Pepper v. GVG Capital LLC(Southern District of Texas, 2023) the court similarly recognized that text messages offering to purchase homes, when combined with explicit or implicit offers to provide transaction-related services (title services, escrow, legal assistance), can constitute solicitations.
Pure Purchase Offers to Buy vs. Bundled Services
When it comes to texts offering to purchase property, the emerging consensus among federal courts identifies a relatively clear distinction:
Pure Purchase Offers: Texts presenting pure offers to purchase are generally NOT viewed as “solicitations” covered by the TCPA. These are messages that solely express an interest in purchasing the recipient's property, with no mention of ancillary services. While such messages are ultimately driven by the sender’s desire to make money, the profit motive is legally irrelevant under the statutory definition.
Mixed Purchase Offers: Offers to purchase property coupled with transaction-related services (title company selection, escrow arrangement, legal document assistance) that result in an effective fee are considered solicitations. Ancillary services are provided for an "effective fee" if their costs are deducted from the offer or charged separately. It is the bundled services component transforms the communication into a solicitation
Additional TCPA Considerations
Even if a pure offer to purchase property is not a "telephone solicitation" under § 227(c), property investors must remain cognizant of other TCPA provisions. Section 227(b) prohibits calls or texts using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or artificial/prerecorded voice to cell phones without prior express consent. Thus, while a pure purchase offer text may avoid DNC restrictions, if it is sent using an ATDS or includes a prerecorded voice component, the recipient's prior express consent is required as a separate matter.
Practical Compliance Framework
Property buyers should restrict message content to pure purchase offers and avoid any references to additional services related to the proposed transaction, such title assistance, escrow arrangement, or other ancillary services. Message content should not even imply an “effective fee” structure, as even indirect references to fees deducted from the offer price or assignment fees can trigger solicitation status under McMorroe, Eagle, and Pepper. Also keep in mind that if challenged, plaintiffs' attorneys will likely argue that website statements, follow-up materials, or advertised services convert a purchase offer into a bundled service solicitation.
Property buyers should also determine whether the system being used to send messages could possibly qualify as ATDS. If so, the TCPA mandates that prior express consent be obtained even if the offer itself is not a solicitation.
Regardless of how their messages may be ultimately perceived, to fully protect against potential DNC claims, organizations sending unsolicited texts offering to purchase property should scrub against the National DNC Registry. Remember that consumers who add their numbers to the DNC do so to avoid being pitched and are far less likely to view any unsolicited messages favorably.
