BATON ROUGE, La. – A Louisiana woman has filed a class action complaint against Taco Bell, arguing a string of text messages she received from the fast food company violates federal law.
Plaintiff Samantha Chautin filed her complaint October 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
In her 11-page complaint, she alleges defendant Taco Bell Corp. violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
“Plaintiff did not give Defendant prior express consent or permission to deliver, or cause to be delivered, advertisement or marketing text messages to telephone number (337) 285-XXXX,” the filing states. “Plaintiff did not request information or promotional materials from Defendant.
“Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of the subject text messages in that he [sic] suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into his [sic] life, and a private nuisance.”
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 restricts telephone solicitations, or telemarketing, and the use of automated telephone equipment. In particular, the law limits the use of automatic dialing systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text messages and fax machines.
The law permits any “person or entity” to bring an action to enjoin violations of the statute and/or recover actual damages or statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per violation.
Chautin argues she registered her phone number with the National Do Not Call Registry on June 19, 2025.
The registry is a free, online service from the Federal Trade Commission that allows a person to register their home or cell phone number to receive fewer unsolicited telemarketing calls or text messages.
Despite registering, Chautin claims she received at least 12 text messages from Taco Bell in July and August.
“Defendant delivered, or caused to be delivered, the subject text messages to telephone number (337) 285-XXXX thirty-one or more days after Plaintiff registered telephone number (337) 285-XXXX with the DNC Registry,” the complaint states.
“The subject text messages were intended for someone other than, and unknown to, Plaintiff.”
Chautin claims she uses her cell phone number as a personal, residential number, and does not use it for business or commercial purposes. She does not have a landline phone, she notes.
The exact number of other class members is unknown at this time, her filing claims, but can be determined through “appropriate” discovery.
She argues a class action is necessary because separate action could “substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.”
“The pursuit of separate actions by individual members of the class could create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, which might establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant,” the complaint states.
Chautin said her counsel would “vigorously pursue” the matter.
She has retained Andress Law Firm LLC of Lafayette, La., and Paronich Law PC of Hingham, Mass.
