A federal judge in Tennessee has handed companies facing Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuits a meaningful procedural win, and businesses across industries that rely on outbound calling or texting should take note. In a ruling issued May 11, 2026, U.S. District Judge Katherine A. Crytzer denied a TCPA plaintiff’s request to delay summary judgment in Brockington v. Hume Health, LLC, the case clearing the way for the defendant’s consent defense to be decided on the existing record.
The case in brief
Plaintiff Sheri Butler Brockington alleged that Hume Health, a wellness company, called and texted her in violation of the TCPA and rules surrounding the National Do Not Call Registry. Hume Health responded by moving for summary judgment, presenting evidence that Brockington had filled out a Facebook lead form and clicked a “SIGN UP” button containing consent language authorizing the company’s outreach.
Rather than directly contesting the consent evidence, Brockington asked the court to invoke Rule 56(d) — a procedural mechanism that lets a party defer summary judgment when they can show that additional discovery is needed to oppose the motion. The judge denied the request, ruling that Brockington had failed to identify specific facts she expected discovery to uncover or explain why those facts were essential to her opposition.
Why business leaders should care
TCPA class actions have become one of the most reliably expensive forms of consumer litigation in the United States. The statute provides for damages of $500 to $1,500 per call or text, and class certifications routinely produce settlements in the seven- and eight-figure range. For businesses, the cost of defending these cases — often regardless of merit — is itself a major driver of settlement.
One reason defense costs run so high is that plaintiffs frequently use discovery to expand the record and increase pressure to settle. A court that requires plaintiffs to articulate specific, concrete reasons they need more discovery — rather than allowing open-ended fishing expeditions — shifts that dynamic. Companies with clean records of consent at the point of contact stand to benefit; companies whose lead-capture documentation is thin or inconsistent are still exposed.
What good documentation looks like
Hume Health’s defense rests on a piece of evidence that many businesses assume they have but often cannot produce on demand: the raw record of a consumer interacting with a lead form. That record typically includes the form fields completed, the disclosure language displayed at the moment of submission, the timestamp, the IP address, and (in the case of paid lead sources) the originating ad creative.
Businesses that buy leads from third-party vendors are especially vulnerable to gaps here. Many vendors retain submission data only for a limited period — sometimes as short as 90 days — even though TCPA claims can reach back four years. When the underlying record is gone, the defense becomes much harder, regardless of how strong the consent was at the time of capture.
A broader trend in TCPA litigation
The Brockington decision arrives as TCPA filings continue to grow. Year-to-date class action filings through the first quarter of 2026 ran roughly 19 percent above 2025 levels, with monthly records being broken in some categories. Federal courts have been increasingly willing in recent months to scrutinize the merits of TCPA claims at earlier stages — a trend that includes the Fifth Circuit’s rejection of the FCC’s “prior express written consent” rule earlier this year and now this Eastern District of Tennessee ruling on Rule 56(d) standards.
For consumer-facing companies, the message is consistent across these decisions: the legal landscape is rewarding businesses that invest in robust consent documentation and pre-call screening, and punishing those that treat compliance as an afterthought.
Companies that contact consumers by phone or text increasingly screen their outbound lists against databases of known TCPA plaintiffs before dialing. Services such as TCPALitigatorList.com compile numbers tied to serial filers and frequent class-action plaintiffs, and a quick pre-call check against that list can keep a business out of expensive litigation it never should have been in.
What to watch next
The actual summary judgment motion in Brockington is now expected to be decided in the coming weeks. If the court rules in Hume Health’s favor, it will be a meaningful data point for defendants weighing whether early dispositive motions are worth filing in TCPA cases. Either way, the Rule 56(d) ruling stands as a signal that federal courts are willing to push back on the procedural tactics that have historically made TCPA litigation so expensive to defend.
Sources
Brockington v. Hume Health, LLC, 3:25-cv-00161 (E.D. Tenn. May 11, 2026); reporting from National Law Review and Justia dockets.