In a noteworthy decision, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a plaintiff’s TCPA claim based on the receipt of a single unsolicited text message did not state a real injury in fact because the receipt of one text message does not interfere with privacy in the home. Salcedo v. Hanna involves an allegation based on the plaintiff’s receipt of a single advertising text message from a law firm where the plaintiff had previously been a client. In considering whether the plaintiff stated a viable claim, the court examined legal precedent, the TCPA’s legislative history, Congressional intent.  The Eleventh Circuit concluded from its review of the TCPA’s legislative history that Congress was concerned about “privacy within the sanctity of the home” (not a general desire to minimize any unwanted robocalls) which would not apply to the type of harm that might result from an unsolicited text message. “Cell phones are often taken outside of the home and often have their ringers silenced, presenting less potential nuisance and home intrusion.” The court also interpreted the Congressional amendment to allow the FCC to exempt calls to a phone number assigned to cellular service that do not charge the called party as indicative of lesser congressional concern about intrusions from cell phone generally. Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the plaintiff’s claim with respect to traditional torts, emphasizing intrusion upon seclusion, and found that the allegations fell short of the relevant standards of harm. In its decision, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations did not represent a real tangible harm because it involved “a brief, inconsequential annoyance,” which it likened to someone briefly waving a pamphlet in your face while walking down the street. The panel unanimously determined that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue.