Federal Court Denies TCPA Certification in Junk Fax Case

If you thought the fax machine retired sometime between dial-up internet and the first iPhone, I have news:
it’s still clocking in for work. And so are “junk fax” lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
In a recent decision, a federal court took one look at a proposed junk-fax class action and basically said,
“Nice trynow show me who actually received these faxes on a real fax machine.”

The result: no class certification. The reason: modern faxing doesn’t always involve paper, toner, or a machine that
squeals like a tiny robot being stepped on. In an era of online fax services and email-like inboxes, the old
“fax equals fax machine” assumption can turn class actions into a logistical horror moviewithout the fun soundtrack.

Quick TCPA Fax Refresher: Why “Junk Faxes” Can Become Big Trouble

The TCPA is best known for regulating robocalls and texts, but it also covers fax advertisements. In plain terms,
the law generally prohibits sending an unsolicited advertisement by fax to a “telephone facsimile machine,” unless
a statutory exception applies (most famously, the “established business relationship” concept and related conditions).
If that sounds simple, don’t worryfax law has never met a simple idea it couldn’t complicate.

What counts as a “junk fax”?

A “junk fax” claim typically argues that a business sent advertising material by fax without the recipient’s prior
express invitation or permission (or without meeting the requirements of an applicable exception). The fights often
revolve around whether the fax is truly an “advertisement,” whether the sender had the required relationship or consent,
and whether the sender complied with opt-out rules when they applied.

Why class actions are so tempting in fax cases

TCPA fax claims can carry statutory damages per fax, which is why plaintiffs often try to certify large classes.
Multiply even modest per-fax damages across thousands of transmissions and you get the kind of numbers that make
CFOs suddenly very interested in the company’s “legacy communications workflows.”

The Case at the Center: A Junk Fax Class Action Meets a Modern Fax Problem

In Fischbein v. IQVIA, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
the plaintiff alleged that IQVIA sent unsolicited fax advertisements to a large group of healthcare providers.
The proposed class was substantialover 25,000 recipients were allegedand the plaintiff moved to certify a class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

The court denied class certification. Not because the court declared that junk fax cases never belong in class form,
but because the plaintiff could not showusing common, classwide proofthat the proposed class members received the
transmissions in a way the TCPA actually covers.

The hidden landmine: “Telephone facsimile machine” is not just a vibe

TCPA fax claims are tied to a specific statutory phrase: sending an unsolicited advertisement “to a telephone
facsimile machine.” That means, at some point, someone has to answer a deceptively modern question:
what exactly qualifies as a “telephone facsimile machine” today?

The court treated the statutory definition as central. Under the TCPA, a “telephone facsimile machine” is equipment
that has the capacity to send or receive transmissions over a “regular telephone line” and (critically) to
transcribe onto paper (or from paper) as part of that process.

Online fax services: when a “fax” behaves like email

A major thread in modern junk fax litigation is the rise of online fax servicessystems that receive faxes over the
internet and deliver them like email (often as PDFs or attachments). Courts and regulators have increasingly viewed
these services as different from a traditional stand-alone fax machine, because the classic harms Congress targeted
(paper/ink costs shifting to the recipient, tying up a fax line, automatically printing unwanted material) don’t land
the same way when the message arrives as a digital file you can delete with a single click.

In Fischbein, the court concluded that the TCPA’s fax protections apply to receipt on a traditional,
stand-alone fax machinenot to receipt through an online fax service. That interpretation mattered because it
immediately split the world into two buckets: covered recipients (traditional fax machines) and not-covered recipients
(online fax services).

Why the Court Said “No” to Class Certification

Class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) usually rises or falls on whether common issues predominate and whether the
class is workable to identify. This decision hit both issues at once.

1) Ascertainability: Who is actually in the class?

In a class action, you can’t just say “everyone who got the fax.” You need a reliable way to identify class members
without turning the litigation into thousands of mini-trials. Here, the court focused on a practical problem:
to know whether someone has a viable TCPA fax claim under the court’s interpretation, you must know whether that
recipient got the fax on a stand-alone fax machine (covered) or through an online fax service (not covered).

And that, according to the record, couldn’t be determined with a single dataset or a consistent methodology.
The court found that figuring out the receiving equipment would require individualized inquiriescontacting recipients,
investigating their setups, and essentially doing case-by-case fact-finding. That’s not a class action; that’s a
very expensive group project with no shared Google Doc.

2) Predominance: Individual questions took over

Even if a class can be defined, Rule 23(b)(3) requires common issues to predominate over individualized ones.
Once the “online fax vs. stand-alone fax” distinction becomes essential to liability, that individualized equipment
question starts driving the bus. If you need individualized proof for a key element of each claim, predominance
gets shaky fast.

The court concluded that the individualized inquiry into each recipient’s receiving equipment defeated predominance.
In other words, the question “Was this fax received on a TCPA-covered machine?” wasn’t a small side questit was the
main storyline.

3) A tech detail that mattered: what is a “regular telephone line”?

The decision also dug into the statutory wording about transmissions over a “regular telephone line,” contrasting it
with modern technologies such as VoIP or trunk lines. This wasn’t the court trying to cosplay as an IT department.
It was the court emphasizing that the statute’s text still matters, even when the technology has evolved in ways
Congress didn’t fully anticipate in 1991.

How This Decision Fits into the Bigger Junk Fax Trend

The denial of class certification in Fischbein didn’t appear out of nowhere. It fits into a broader trend:
courts are increasingly skeptical of junk fax classes that include recipients who might have received messages via
online fax services.

Fourth Circuit: a major appellate decision reinforces the split

In Career Counseling, Inc. v. AmeriFactors Financial Group, LLC, the Fourth Circuit addressed the online-fax
issue and agreed with limiting actionable claims to recipients who used traditional stand-alone fax machines.
It also emphasized that class membership needed to be narrowed accordingly and that plaintiffs had to show a workable
method of identifying class members.

The Supreme Court later declined to review that disputemeaning the appellate ruling stayed in place and the online-fax
question remained a hot topic for district courts and litigants.

Ninth Circuit: decertification when individual issues overwhelm

The Ninth Circuit likewise affirmed decertification of a junk fax class where individual questions about whether
recipients used online fax services versus stand-alone fax machines predominated. The pattern is consistent:
when modern fax delivery methods make it hard to prove classwide liability, courts become reluctant to keep the case
in class form.

District courts: early-stage dismissals for online fax receipts

Some district courts have gone even further by dismissing claims where the alleged receipt was through an online fax
service, holding that such receipt does not meet the TCPA’s “telephone facsimile machine” requirement as interpreted
in those decisions. That means some cases can end before certification battles even begin.

Important nuance: “e-fax” is not always the same thing everywhere

One reason this area stays messy is that different decisions sometimes use “e-fax” to describe different technologies.
Some systems route faxes to computers but still operate over telephone lines in a more traditional sense; other systems
receive “faxes” as internet messages that are effectively email. Several courts have drawn meaningful distinctions
between those setups, which can change outcomes depending on the facts and the circuit.

Regulators Matter Too: FCC Rulings Shaped the Landscape

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has addressed online fax services in declaratory rulings, including the
well-known AmeriFactors ruling. The FCC’s core logic has been practical: online fax services function more like
email; recipients can delete or block messages without automatic printing; and the classic “junk fax harms” aren’t
triggered in the same way.

The FCC also issued a declaratory ruling involving Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, again reinforcing that certain digital
fax technologies that resemble email fall outside the TCPA’s fax prohibition.

But can courts independently interpret the TCPA anyway?

Yesand this is a big deal. In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed how district courts should treat FCC legal
interpretations in enforcement proceedings (including TCPA litigation). The Court concluded that district courts are
not categorically bound to accept an agency’s statutory interpretation in that setting and may independently assess
what the statute means, while still giving the agency’s views appropriate respect.

Practically, that means the legal fight often returns to the statute’s text: what is a “telephone facsimile machine,”
what is a “regular telephone line,” and what does it mean to send something “to” that machine?

What Businesses Should Learn from a Denied TCPA Fax Class

If you’re a business thinking, “We don’t fax,” you are probably correct. If you’re a business thinking,
“We don’t fax anymore,” you are probably less correct than you thinkbecause vendors, third-party marketers,
and legacy workflows have a way of quietly faxing on your behalf like a haunted office printer.

1) Map your fax ecosystem (yes, really)

Identify who sends faxes in your organization, what vendors are involved, and what lists or databases are used.
“We don’t fax” is not a compliance program; it’s a vibe. Courts, unfortunately, prefer evidence.

2) Treat contact lists like food in your fridge: label them, date them, and don’t keep mystery meat

Many TCPA fax disputes involve whether numbers were obtained properly and whether recipients consented or had an
established business relationship under the statutory conditions. Good list hygiene and documentation help reduce
risk and make disputes easier to defend.

3) Understand the online fax twistespecially for class exposure

The modern trend suggests that if recipients are a mixed group (some stand-alone fax machines, some online fax services),
plaintiffs may struggle to certify broad classes. That doesn’t mean there’s no risk; it means the litigation may
morph into smaller, narrower classes or individual claims depending on the facts.

4) Don’t ignore opt-out mechanics

Fax compliance has a long history of disputes over opt-out requirements, wording, and timing. Even when a business
believes it has consent or an established relationship, sloppy opt-out implementation can invite lawsuitsor at
minimum, invite expensive arguments.

What Plaintiffs May Do Next: Narrower Classes and Better Proof

A denial of class certification is not always the end of the story. Plaintiffs may try to:

• Narrow the class to recipients more likely to use stand-alone fax machines.
• Find better common proof (for example, carrier data or technical evidence) to distinguish online fax services.
• Litigate individualized claims where the economics still make sense.
• Argue different statutory interpretations in jurisdictions that may treat certain “computer-routed” faxes differently.

But the core lesson from decisions like Fischbein is straightforward: if the plaintiff can’t show, with common
evidence, who received the fax on a TCPA-covered machine, certification becomes a steep uphill climb in hiking boots made
of Rule 23.

Real-World Experiences: What Junk Fax Fights Actually Feel Like (and What People Learn)

The most consistent “experience” reported by teams dealing with junk fax claims is surprisefollowed by a frantic search
for who, exactly, still has a fax line in the first place. In many organizations, faxing is not a deliberate marketing
strategy; it’s a leftover habit living inside a vendor relationship, a healthcare workflow, or a “we’ve always done it
this way” process no one has audited since flip phones were cool.

One common pattern: the demand letter arrives, and the first internal reaction is, “We don’t send faxes.”
The second reactionafter someone checks vendor portals, old contracts, or a marketing automation settingis,
“We don’t send faxes… personally.” That’s when the real work begins: tracing what was sent, when, to whom,
and through what technology. And this is where online fax services become the plot twist. The recipient may describe
the message as a “fax,” but what they actually received could be a PDF in an email-like inbox. That distinction can
determine whether the claim is even actionable under the interpretive approach many courts now take.

Another repeated experience is the battle over proof. Plaintiffs often want to use transmission logsbecause they can be
neat, centralized, and dramatic. Defendants often want to poke holes in those logsbecause “success” statuses don’t always
mean what people think they mean, and because logs rarely tell you what device the recipient used on their end. In mixed
recipient populations, that missing detail becomes the hinge point. Without a reliable way to separate stand-alone fax
machine recipients from online fax service users, the case starts to look less like a class action and more like a
very large spreadsheet with thousands of unanswered questions.

Practical lesson number three: narrowing is powerful. When companies can credibly show that the recipient list includes
many online fax services (or can’t be reliably sorted), certification risk can drop. On the flip side, if a plaintiff can
identify a subset of recipients who almost certainly used traditional fax machinesthink certain small medical practices,
specialty offices, or legacy-heavy industriesplaintiffs may pivot to a narrower class with better odds.

Finally, there’s the human experience of “compliance whiplash.” Fax rules have evolved through statutes, FCC orders,
court decisions, and shifting technology. Teams that manage risk well tend to do two unglamorous things consistently:
(1) document how fax numbers were obtained and what permissions exist, and (2) periodically audit whether anyone is still
using fax-based outreach. It’s not glamorous, but neither is explaining to leadership why the company’s biggest lawsuit
started with a machine you thought was in a museum.

Conclusion: The Fax Machine Isn’t DeadBut Broad Junk Fax Classes Might Be

The denial of class certification in Fischbein v. IQVIA underscores a modern reality: TCPA junk fax litigation now
turns heavily on technology details that didn’t matter as much when every fax automatically printed onto paper.
Courts increasingly focus on whether a fax was received on a traditional stand-alone fax machine versus an online fax
serviceand if that distinction can’t be proven with common evidence, class certification becomes difficult.

For businesses, the takeaway is not “ignore fax risk,” but “know your systems, your vendors, and your proof.”
For plaintiffs, the takeaway is equally clear: the path forward likely runs through narrower classes and stronger,
technology-aware evidence. And for everyone else: yes, the fax machine is still here. Please don’t feed it after midnight.

General information only, not legal advice.