A promotional text offering a discounted corn dog may look harmless. It is short, cheerful, and probably arrives around the exact moment someone realizes dinner has not planned itself. But when a marketing message allegedly reaches a consumer who never signed up, never shared a phone number, and already placed that number on the National Do Not Call Registry, the tiny text can become a very large legal problem.
That is the dispute at the center of Brennan v. Sonic Inc., a proposed Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action filed against Sonic Drive-In. The lawsuit alleges that the restaurant chain sent unsolicited promotional text messages without the recipient’s consent. The plaintiff seeks to represent other consumers who allegedly received similar communications.
The case is not a court finding that Sonic violated the law. It is a complaint containing allegations that Sonic may challenge through motions, evidence, defenses, or settlement negotiations. Still, the filing provides a useful case study in the legal risks surrounding SMS marketing, consumer consent, automated messaging systems, and the National Do Not Call Registry.
What the Sonic TCPA Class Action Alleges
Joseph Brennan filed the lawsuit on March 4, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Sonic Inc., doing business as Sonic Drive-In, is named as the defendant. The complaint invokes the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, commonly abbreviated as the TCPA, and requests a jury trial.
According to the allegations, Brennan registered his telephone number with the National Do Not Call Registry on February 3, 2024. The complaint says he nevertheless began receiving promotional messages associated with Sonic shortly afterward.
The messages reportedly advertised menu deals, including offers involving grilled cheese sandwiches and 99-cent corn dogs. The complaint identifies texts received on several dates in March. A bargain corn dog may be inexpensive, but in TCPA litigation, the message promoting it could theoretically become the most expensive item on the menu.
The plaintiff says he never opted in
Brennan alleges that he did not provide his telephone number to Sonic, enroll in a Sonic rewards program, establish a business relationship with the company, or otherwise authorize promotional texts. He characterizes the communications as generic, impersonal marketing messages rather than individualized responses to a request.
The complaint also alleges that the frequency and uniform nature of the texts indicate that Sonic used an automatic telephone dialing system, or ATDS. Whether the messaging technology legally qualifies as an ATDS is likely to be an important and highly technical question. A platform does not automatically meet the statutory definition simply because it can send a large batch of scheduled messages.
Two proposed groups of consumers
The lawsuit reportedly proposes two classes. One would cover certain consumers whose numbers were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry but who allegedly received Sonic promotional texts. The other would cover recipients who allegedly received automated marketing texts without providing the written consent required by the plaintiff’s interpretation of the TCPA.
Proposing a class is only the beginning. Before a case can proceed on behalf of a nationwide group, the plaintiff generally must persuade the court that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been satisfied. That usually involves questions about common evidence, the similarity of class members’ claims, the reliability of contact records, and whether individual consent issues would overwhelm the shared issues.
What Is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act?
Congress enacted the TCPA in 1991 to address intrusive telemarketing practices. Although the statute arrived before smartphones, restaurant apps, short codes, and push notifications became everyday fixtures, courts and the Federal Communications Commission have applied portions of it to modern text messaging.
The law regulates several types of communications, including certain calls or texts made with automated technology, prerecorded or artificial-voice calls, telephone solicitations, and messages sent to numbers protected by do-not-call rules.
Not every unwanted text violates the TCPA. Liability can depend on the purpose of the communication, the technology used, the recipient’s consent, the type of telephone number involved, the sender’s relationship with the recipient, and the specific subsection of the law being asserted.
Marketing texts and written consent
Current FCC regulations generally require prior express written consent when a business uses an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver advertising or telemarketing messages to covered telephone numbers. A compliant agreement should clearly authorize the seller to send promotional communications to a specified number.
The consent language should also be conspicuous. Hiding permission in a paragraph that looks like it was written by a committee of microscopes is not an ideal compliance strategy. Businesses should be able to show when consent was given, how it was obtained, what the disclosure said, and which brand was authorized to contact the consumer.
The National Do Not Call Registry
The National Do Not Call Registry allows consumers to register home or mobile telephone numbers for free. Registration does not physically block calls or texts. Instead, it tells legitimate telemarketers that the number generally should be removed from covered solicitation lists.
The FTC advises that it can take up to 31 days after registration for covered sales calls to stop. Certain communications remain permitted, including some informational, political, charitable, survey, and debt-collection communications. A company may also have defenses based on permission or an established business relationship, although a company-specific request to stop communications can override that relationship in many circumstances.
Why the Definition of an Autodialer Matters
One of the largest legal hurdles in modern TCPA text cases is proving that the sender used an automatic telephone dialing system as Congress defined that term.
In the 2021 Supreme Court decision Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, the Court rejected an interpretation that would have treated nearly every system capable of storing and automatically dialing numbers as an ATDS. The Court held that qualifying equipment must have the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce telephone numbers to be called.
That decision narrowed many automated-dialing claims. A marketing platform that sends texts to a curated database of known customers may not qualify merely because the process is automated. Plaintiffs often need evidence concerning how the platform generated, stored, selected, and dialed numbersnot simply screenshots showing that several messages looked alike.
For the Sonic lawsuit, allegations describing the messages as generic or frequent may support an inference at the pleading stage. Ultimately, however, technical documentation, vendor testimony, software configurations, and discovery into the messaging system may determine whether an ATDS theory survives.
The Do-Not-Call Theory Has Its Own Legal Complications
The TCPA’s subscriber-privacy provisions create a private right of action for a person who receives more than one covered telephone call from the same entity within a 12-month period in violation of the applicable regulations. The statutory language uses the phrase “telephone call,” which has produced disagreement over whether the private remedy extends to text messages.
That issue became especially significant in a separate 2026 case involving Sonic. In Irvin v. Sonic Industries Services, LLC, a federal court in Georgia concluded that the private do-not-call remedy in Section 227(c) did not cover promotional text messages because the statute specifically refers to telephone calls.
The Georgia ruling did not decide the Brennan lawsuit, and decisions from one federal district court do not automatically control another. It nevertheless illustrates the evolving legal environment. A plaintiff may have one theory based on automated dialing and another based on the Do Not Call Registry, yet each theory can face a different statutory argument.
How Much Could a TCPA Violation Cost?
The TCPA permits eligible plaintiffs to seek actual monetary loss or statutory damages of $500 for each qualifying violation, depending on the claim. If a court determines that a violation was willful or knowing, it may increase the statutory award to as much as three times the ordinary amount, potentially reaching $1,500 per violation.
These figures are not automatic payouts. A plaintiff must establish that the relevant provision applies, that the defendant is legally responsible, and that the communication constitutes a separate violation. Enhanced damages require an additional finding and remain within the court’s discretion.
The potential exposure becomes serious when the alleged campaign includes thousands or millions of recipients. Five messages to one consumer might suggest a relatively small dispute. Five messages to 100,000 class members can produce a damages calculation that causes corporate counsel to stare silently into the middle distance.
What Sonic May Argue in Response
Sonic may dispute the allegations, the proposed class definitions, the interpretation of the statute, or the connection between the corporation and the messaging campaign. Possible defenses in TCPA litigation commonly include the following issues.
Consent records
The company could attempt to show that the plaintiff or other recipients entered their numbers through an app, website form, contest, loyalty program, in-store promotion, or another opt-in process. The precise wording and presentation of that process would matter.
The messaging technology
Sonic may argue that its platform did not use random or sequential number generation and therefore was not an ATDS under Duguid. The fact that software automatically transmitted scheduled messages would not necessarily settle the issue.
Classwide differences
Some recipients may have enrolled in a rewards program, while others may have received a recycled telephone number previously associated with a customer. Others may have consented through different promotions. If determining consent requires a separate investigation for every class member, Sonic could argue that class treatment is inappropriate.
Corporate and vendor responsibility
National restaurant systems frequently involve parent companies, franchisees, advertising agencies, application providers, and SMS vendors. Sonic may contest who initiated the messages, who controlled the campaign, and whether any third party acted with authority sufficient to impose liability on the named defendant.
What Consumers Should Do With Unwanted Marketing Texts
Consumers receiving unwanted promotional messages should avoid assuming that every annoying text guarantees a class action payment. The more practical response is to preserve accurate evidence and use the available opt-out tools.
Take screenshots showing the sender, full message, date, time, and opt-out language. Save the original messages rather than relying exclusively on screenshots. If the text appears legitimate, reply with a recognized command such as “STOP,” and retain the sent reply and any confirmation.
Consumers can verify or register a personal number through the National Do Not Call Registry. They may also report covered unwanted communications to the FTC or FCC. Blocking a sender can reduce interruptions, although blocking alone does not notify the sender that consent has been revoked.
Anyone considering legal action should consult a qualified consumer-protection attorney who can evaluate the exact messages, consent history, applicable jurisdiction, and available claims. TCPA law contains enough technical distinctions to make a milkshake menu look refreshingly simple.
Lessons for Businesses Using SMS Marketing
The Sonic allegations highlight why businesses should treat consent data as an operational asset rather than a decorative checkbox. A compliant marketing program needs reliable records connecting each telephone number to a specific disclosure, timestamp, source, brand, and authorized purpose.
Companies should maintain centralized suppression lists, promptly process opt-outs, routinely scrub covered campaigns against applicable do-not-call data, and prevent a number removed from one platform from being quietly reintroduced through another database.
Current FCC rules recognize several clear revocation terms, including “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” and “unsubscribe.” Reasonable revocation requests generally must be honored within no more than ten business days. A single nonpromotional confirmation text may be sent to acknowledge the request, but the confirmation should not sneak in one final coupon while heading out the door.
Vendor agreements also deserve attention. A company may outsource message delivery, but it cannot outsource reality. Contracts should define consent standards, audit rights, suppression procedures, data ownership, indemnification, and incident-reporting obligations. Franchise systems need additional controls to prevent local and national campaigns from operating with inconsistent customer lists.
Experiences That Show How TCPA Problems Develop in Real Life
The following composite experiences are illustrative scenarios based on common SMS marketing disputes. They are not representations about the individual parties in the Sonic lawsuit.
The consumer who does not remember signing up
A customer receives a burger coupon from a familiar restaurant and assumes the company bought a random list. Months earlier, however, the customer entered a telephone number to receive a one-time discount through an online promotion. The form also contained marketing consent language below the offer.
This experience shows why memory alone rarely resolves a TCPA dispute. The consumer may genuinely not remember the form, while the company may possess a timestamp showing an apparent opt-in. The next questions concern whether the disclosure was sufficiently clear, whether the correct number was entered, whether the consent covered the particular brand, and whether the consumer later revoked it.
The “STOP” request that falls between databases
Another consumer replies “STOP” to a short-code message and receives an unsubscribe confirmation. Two weeks later, a promotional text arrives from a different number carrying the same brand name.
Behind the scenes, the company may have separate databases for its mobile app, local franchise promotions, delivery orders, and national advertising campaigns. One platform processed the opt-out correctly, but another never received the update. To the consumer, this looks like the brand ignored a direct request. To the company, it becomes a painful lesson in why suppression systems must communicate with one another.
The marketer who inherits a mysterious contact list
A new marketing manager discovers a spreadsheet labeled “VIP Customers” containing 80,000 phone numbers. Nobody can explain exactly where the numbers came from. The previous agency says the list was approved. The franchise team says customers volunteered their numbers. The legal department says, “Please do not press send.” Legal wins this round.
Consent cannot reliably be reconstructed from optimistic filenames. Without records showing the source, disclosure, date, and scope of each opt-in, a business may be unable to defend its campaign even when many recipients actually wanted the messages.
The campaign that looked too small to matter
A restaurant sends four promotional texts to each person on a list. The cost per text is tiny, and the campaign produces a healthy increase in weekend orders. Management considers it a success until a complaint alleges that thousands of numbers lacked valid consent.
The business then has to preserve databases, collect vendor records, review registration dates, investigate opt-outs, analyze platform technology, and respond to class discovery. The dispute is no longer about four messages. It is about whether common practices affected an entire group and whether statutory damages could apply to every qualifying communication.
The practical takeaway from these experiences
Most SMS compliance failures are not caused by a villain dramatically pressing a red button marked “SEND ILLEGAL TEXTS.” They usually arise from disconnected systems, unclear disclosures, old customer data, weak vendor oversight, recycled numbers, and assumptions that nobody documented.
Consumers benefit from saving messages and clearly communicating opt-out requests. Businesses benefit from preserving consent evidence and treating every suppression request as a companywide instruction. When both sides maintain accurate records, disputes can be evaluated using evidence rather than guesses, faded memories, and a spreadsheet last edited by someone named “Marketing Intern Final Final 2.”
Conclusion
The TCPA class action against Sonic demonstrates how an ordinary promotional text can raise complicated questions about consent, automated technology, do-not-call protections, corporate responsibility, and class certification. The plaintiff alleges that Sonic sent marketing offers despite having no permission to contact him and despite his number appearing on the National Do Not Call Registry.
Sonic has the opportunity to contest those allegations, present consent or technology evidence, challenge the proposed classes, and raise statutory defenses. Until a court resolves the claims or the parties reach another disposition, the allegations should not be treated as proven facts.
For consumers, the case is a reminder to document unwanted messages and preserve opt-out records. For businesses, it is a warning that SMS marketing requires more than an attractive coupon and a functioning send button. Consent records, suppression systems, vendor controls, and regular audits are the ingredients that keep a promotional campaign out of the courtroom.
Note: This article discusses allegations contained in public court materials and general TCPA principles for informational purposes. It does not provide legal advice, guarantee eligibility for compensation, or imply that Sonic has been found liable.