Case Overview

| | |

|---|---|

| Article Type | Roundup |

| Vertical | Privacy, Data & TCPA |

| Date | March 2026 |

| Cases Covered | 3 |

Data Breaches and TCPA Developments: 3 Class Action Stories to Watch This Week

Three notable developments in privacy and consumer protection litigation emerged this week, touching on corporate data security obligations, a narrowing interpretation of text message protections under federal law, and a costly arbitration misstep affecting businesses that purchase consumer leads. Here's what you need to know.

1. Choice Hotels Faces Class Action Over Alleged Franchise Data Breach

Case Status: Newly Filed

Who May Be Affected: Choice Hotels franchisees and franchise applicants whose personal information was stored in company systems

Data Allegedly Exposed: Personally identifiable information (PII), potentially including names, addresses, and financial details

According to a recent report on the class action filing, a new lawsuit accuses Choice Hotels International Inc. of failing to adequately safeguard the personally identifiable information of its franchisees and franchise applicants. The complaint alleges the hospitality giant was negligent in its data security practices, leaving sensitive information vulnerable to unauthorized access.

The lawsuit claims that Choice Hotels failed to implement reasonable security measures to protect the data entrusted to it through its franchise relationships. According to the complaint, affected individuals now face an elevated risk of identity theft, financial fraud, and other harms associated with the exposure of personal information.

Choice Hotels has not yet publicly responded to the allegations. The case is in its early stages, and no settlement has been announced.

What to watch: If you are a current or former Choice Hotels franchisee or franchise applicant, you may want to monitor this case for developments regarding eligibility and potential relief. No claim form is currently available.

2. Eleventh Circuit Courts Find Text Messages May Not Qualify for Do-Not-Call TCPA Protections

Case Status: Ongoing judicial trend — multiple dismissals

Who Is Affected: Consumers who received unsolicited text messages and filed claims under TCPA's Do-Not-Call provisions

Key Statute: 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)

A growing line of decisions in the Eleventh Circuit is reshaping how courts interpret one of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's key consumer protections — and the implications could be significant for anyone who has received unwanted text messages.

District courts across the Eleventh Circuit have increasingly ruled that the TCPA's Do-Not-Call provisions do not extend a private right of action to recipients of unwanted text messages. At issue is the statutory language of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), which references "telephone calls." Three judges in the circuit have recently dismissed claims on the grounds that text messages do not constitute "telephone calls" under the plain reading of that provision.

This interpretation, if it holds or spreads to other circuits, could narrow the legal avenues available to consumers who receive unsolicited commercial texts — a particularly active area of TCPA litigation in recent years.

It is worth noting that other TCPA provisions, including those governing autodialed calls and prerecorded messages, treat text messages the same as calls and remain viable legal theories in many cases. The developing circuit split on Section 227(c) is one to watch as courts continue to interpret the law's application to modern communications.

What to watch: Plaintiffs' attorneys and businesses operating text message marketing campaigns should monitor whether this interpretation gains traction in other circuits or triggers a legislative or regulatory response.

3. Lead Buyer Denied Arbitration in TCPA Class Action After Common Contract Mistake

Case Status: Court ruling issued — arbitration motion denied

Who Is Affected: Businesses that purchase consumer leads from third-party generators

Key Issue: Arbitration provision language in lead generation agreements

A recent court ruling is serving as a cautionary tale for companies that buy consumer leads as part of their marketing operations — and it highlights a recurring contract drafting error with serious legal consequences.

A court denied a lead buyer's motion to compel arbitration in a TCPA class action, ruling that the company could not invoke an arbitration clause it was not explicitly named in. According to reporting on the decision, the lead buyer's name appeared on a "marketing partners" list within the consumer-facing consent form, but was not identified by name within the arbitration provision itself.

Courts have consistently held that a party seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement must be clearly identified in that specific provision — not merely referenced elsewhere in the same document. The distinction, while technical, has significant practical consequences: without the ability to compel arbitration, the company faces class action exposure in federal court rather than the more limited individual arbitration process.

This ruling reflects a pattern that has played out repeatedly in TCPA litigation involving lead generation. Businesses that rely on consumer consent forms drafted by third-party lead generators may not have the legal protections they believe are in place.

What to watch: Companies purchasing marketing leads may want to review whether their name appears specifically within the arbitration clause of any consent form — not just on an associated list of partners or affiliates.

Key Takeaways

• Data breach cases continue to expand beyond retail and tech — The Choice Hotels lawsuit illustrates that franchise-based hospitality companies are increasingly litigation targets over how they handle franchisee data.
• TCPA text message protections may be narrower than many assume — A growing number of Eleventh Circuit courts have found that Do-Not-Call provisions may not cover texts, a development that could affect pending and future claims.
• Arbitration clauses must explicitly name your company — Appearing on a marketing partners list is not enough. Lead buyers who rely on third-party consent forms should verify they are named within the arbitration provision itself.
• Check your records — If you are a Choice Hotels franchisee or applicant, retain any communications about your relationship with the company, as this information may be relevant if the case proceeds toward a settlement.

Have you been affected by a data breach or received unwanted text messages from a company? Share your experience in the comments below.

InjuryClaims.com reports on litigation developments for informational purposes only. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. Eligibility for any settlement or lawsuit is determined by attorneys and courts, not by this publication.