The complaint follows a documented surge in similar TCPA quiet hours actions since late 2024, many filed by high-volume practitioners using social media recruitment to identify plaintiffs. The specific details of Crickle Daisy's filing remain limited in available reports. A critical question for the defense: recent case law, including King v. Bon Charge decided April 30, 2026, has dismissed quiet hours claims where plaintiffs voluntarily provided their phone numbers, reasoning that prior consent negates the "solicitation" element. Whether Crickle Daisy can invoke this defense depends on its records of customer consent.
Attorneys representing companies in the consumer goods and retail sectors should audit their text marketing practices immediately. The quiet hours provision has become a preferred target for class action filers after earlier TCPA theories faced Supreme Court headwinds. Companies should document all opt-in mechanisms and timestamps for customer phone numbers, as courts are increasingly receptive to arguments that prior consent defeats quiet hours liability. Defendants should also monitor whether courts in their jurisdictions adopt the Bon Charge reasoning or reject it as inconsistent with the statute's plain language.