--- title: 6th Circuit Holds One Ringless Voicemail Sufficient to Violate TCPA description: The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision and found that a single ringless voicemail (RVM) was enough to violate the TCPA. image: https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/hubfs/FILES/Blog%20Photos/webinar-tcpa-compliance-burden-increased-litigation.jpg --- [About Us](https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/about-us)    [![Womble_TCPA_DefenseForce_VERTICAL_White](https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Logos/Womble%20TCPA%20DF/Womble_TCPA_DefenseForce_VERTICAL_White.png?width=1413&height=741&name=Womble_TCPA_DefenseForce_VERTICAL_White.png "Womble_TCPA_DefenseForce_VERTICAL_White")](https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/) - [Resource Library](https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/tcpa-law-resource-library/topic/e-guides) - [Events](https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/tcpa-defense-force-events) - [Blog](https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/tcpa-law-blog) [![SET UP A CALL](https://no-cache.hubspot.com/cta/default/2542871/53366e90-b47a-4b77-bf76-fa7dacebc970.png)](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/2542871/53366e90-b47a-4b77-bf76-fa7dacebc970) ![blog-post-banner-1.jpg](https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Innovista_Theme-Dec2016/Banners/blog-post-banner1.jpeg?width=1295&name=blog-post-banner1.jpeg "blog-post-banner-1.jpg") # 6th Circuit Holds One Ringless Voicemail Sufficient to Violate TCPA By Jason Walters | June 30, 2023 | [TCPA Litigation](https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/tcpa-law-blog/topic/tcpa-litigation) [![Share on Facebook](https://static.hubspot.com/final/img/common/icons/social/facebook-24x24.png)](http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tcpadefenseforce.com%2Ftcpa-law-blog%2F6th-circuit-holds-one-ringless-voicemail-sufficient-to-violate-tcpa%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dfacebook) [![Share on LinkedIn](https://static.hubspot.com/final/img/common/icons/social/linkedin-24x24.png)](http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tcpadefenseforce.com%2Ftcpa-law-blog%2F6th-circuit-holds-one-ringless-voicemail-sufficient-to-violate-tcpa%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dlinkedin) [![Share on Twitter](https://static.hubspot.com/final/img/common/icons/social/twitter-24x24.png)](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tcpadefenseforce.com%2Ftcpa-law-blog%2F6th-circuit-holds-one-ringless-voicemail-sufficient-to-violate-tcpa%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dtwitter&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tcpadefenseforce.com%2Ftcpa-law-blog%2F6th-circuit-holds-one-ringless-voicemail-sufficient-to-violate-tcpa%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dtwitter&source=tweetbutton&text=6th%20Circuit%20Holds%20One%20Ringless%20Voicemail%20Sufficient%20to%20Violate%20TCPA) [![Share on Pinterest](https://static.hubspot.com/final/img/common/icons/social/pinterest-24x24.png)](http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tcpadefenseforce.com%2Ftcpa-law-blog%2F6th-circuit-holds-one-ringless-voicemail-sufficient-to-violate-tcpa%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dpinterest&media=) [![Share on Email](https://static.hubspot.com/final/img/common/icons/social/email-24x24.png)](mailto:?subject=Check%20out%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tcpadefenseforce.com%2Ftcpa-law-blog%2F6th-circuit-holds-one-ringless-voicemail-sufficient-to-violate-tcpa%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Demail%20&body=Check%20out%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tcpadefenseforce.com%2Ftcpa-law-blog%2F6th-circuit-holds-one-ringless-voicemail-sufficient-to-violate-tcpa%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Demail) The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision and found that a single ringless voicemail (RVM) was enough to violate the TCPA.   The district court determined that the plaintiff only received one RVM and dismissed the lawsuit finding that the plaintiff suffered no concrete injury and therefore lacked standing.  The plaintiff appealed to the 6th Circuit.   This was a case of first impression as the 6th Circuit had not previously considered whether the receipt of a single RVM for commercial purposes presented a concrete harm sufficient to confer standing under the TCPA.   To determine whether an intangible harm – such as receiving one unsolicited RVM – rises to the level of a concrete injury, the 6th Circuit ruled that courts may look to (1) history and tradition and (2) Congress’s judgment in enacting the law at issue.  The Court found the RVM “bears a sufficiently close relationship to the traditional common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion” and “the claimed harm directly correlates with the protections enshrined by Congress in the TCPA.” The 6th Circuit panel reversed the lower court holding that the plaintiff did have Article III standing to pursue a class action lawsuit in that one RVM was sufficient to show a concrete injury.   It is important to recognize that the case law involving TCPA claims is ever changing.  The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had previously affirmed a dismissal where a plaintiff received one RVM (*Grigorian v. FCA US LLC*); however, that decision predated a US Supreme Court case (*TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez*) where the court clarified the standing requirements, a distinction the 6th Circuit seized upon in issuing its ruling.  And as noted in our post, [*Does a Single Call to a Cellphone Meet the Concrete Injury Requirement? The Drazen Decision is Forthcoming*](https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/tcpa-law-blog/does-a-single-call-to-a-cellphone-meet-the-concrete-injury-requirement-the-drazen-decision-is-forthcoming), the 11th Circuit is also reexamining its TCPA standing precedent applicable to a single text message and a single mobile call in a pair of cases under review. Dickson v. Direct Energy, LP, No. 22-3394, 2023 WL 3749640, at \*1 (6th Cir. June 1, 2023) ![](https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/hubfs/walters_ja.png) **About The Author** Jason Walters is a Senior Division Counsel with Womble Bond Dickinson and the TCPA Defense Force. He focuses his practice on business litigation and counseling clients in several transactional areas. Prior to joining the firm, Jason primarily worked as a civil litigator defending personal injury and product liability lawsuits. His litigation experience included defending manufacturers of asbestos-containing products and trucking clients. Jason has extensive experience guiding corporations through business formation, corporate structure, insurance, risk management, and federal and state regulations. ## Comments GET THE TCPA DEFENSE FORCE ON YOUR SIDE. [![SET UP A CALL](https://no-cache.hubspot.com/cta/default/2542871/3cb962f3-713d-4f9f-8772-e7b718e93b3b.png)](https://cta-redirect.hubspot.com/cta/redirect/2542871/3cb962f3-713d-4f9f-8772-e7b718e93b3b) [![Womble_TCPA_DefenseForce_VERTICAL](https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Logos/Womble%20TCPA%20DF/Womble_TCPA_DefenseForce_VERTICAL.png?width=300&height=157&name=Womble_TCPA_DefenseForce_VERTICAL.png "Womble_TCPA_DefenseForce_VERTICAL")](https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/) - [Resource Library](https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/tcpa-law-resource-library) - [Blog](https://www.tcpadefenseforce.com/tcpa-law-blog) - [Terms of Use](https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/us/legal-notices) - [Privacy Policy](https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/us/privacy-policy) - [Website Design](https://www.smartbugmedia.com/hubspot-cms-design) - [by SmartBug Media](https://www.smartbugmedia.com) “Womble Bond Dickinson”, the “law firm” or the “firm” refers to the network of member firms of Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited, consisting of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP and Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. Each of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP and Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP is a separate legal entity operating as an independent law firm. Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited does not practice law. Please see [www.womblebonddickinson.com/legal-notices](http://www.womblebonddickinson.com/legal-notices) for further details. ©2022 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer](https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/us/privacy-policy)   ### WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON 2001 K Street, NW Suite 400 South Washington, D.C., US 20006 (Phone) [+1 202.467.6900](tel:+12024676900) (Fax) [+1 202.467.6910](tel:+12024676910)