Judge Freeman granted Agoda’s motion because she found that “the messages were neither advertising nor telemarketing and Agoda received prior express consent from Phan.” Id. at 13. Thus, Agoda was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the affirmative defense of consent. Id. Phan argued that the text messages were advertising or telemarketing because the transactions were complete when he booked the reservations, so the messages were not part of the transactions. Id. at 7. Additionally, Agoda designed the messages to encourage use of the app, which was meant for users to purchase more travel reservations. Id. Judge Freeman rejected Phan’s arguments because the context and content of the messages show that the messages were neither advertising nor telemarketing. Id. at 10. Contextually, the messages were part of an ongoing transaction between Phan and Agoda because Phan could modify or cancel his reservations until he finished traveling. Id. Regarding content, the plain language of each message merely confirmed the reservation and encouraged Phan to manage his reservation through the app. Id. at 11. The messages did not encourage the purchase of Agoda’s services or advertise the app’s commercial availability. Id. at 12. Judge Freeman concluded that the messages’ purpose “was directly cabined to facilitating and completing an existing transaction.” Id. at 11.