ST. LOUIS — A Missouri appellate court has affirmed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of a retail company in a lawsuit alleging violations of federal telemarketing regulations, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the claim.
In a decision filed March 17, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, ruled against Dennis Thompson, who had sued Genesco, which is doing business as Johnston & Murphy, over promotional text messages he received after interacting with the company’s website.
The court determined that Thompson failed to establish a necessary element of standing, specifically, a causal connection between the alleged harm and the conduct he challenged.
Thompson’s lawsuit stemmed from a Dec. 9, 2022, interaction in which he encountered an online advertisement offering a 10% discount.
To receive the discount, Thompson tapped the ad, which prompted his phone to send a “JOIN” text message to a designated number. He then confirmed his participation by replying “Y” to a follow-up message.
After receiving the discount, which he used the same day, Thompson was sent three additional promotional text messages over seven weeks.
Rather than opting out by replying “STOP,” as instructed in the messages, Thompson filed a classaction petition alleging the texts violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and its implementing regulations.
He sought statutory damages of either $500 or $1,500 per message, claiming the texts were sent without proper consent and in violation of federal rules governing telemarketers’ internal do-not-call procedures.
The case was initially removed to federal court, where a U.S. District Court judge determined Thompson lacked standing and remanded the case back to state court.
Thompson then filed an amended petition and sought class certification, while Genesco moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted Genesco’s motion in August 2025 and denied the class certification request as moot, prompting the appeal.
On appeal, Thompson raised four arguments, including claims that factual disputes existed, that he had standing and that the relevant federal regulations applied to text messages.
In its analysis, the court explained that standing requires a plaintiff to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that is directly traceable to the defendant’s alleged unlawful conduct.
Even assuming Thompson suffered some injury, the court found he could not establish that it was caused by Genesco’s alleged failure to maintain proper internal do-not-call procedures.
The court emphasized that the regulation Thompson relied upon applies specifically to situations involving a company’s internal do-not-call list.
Because Thompson never requested to be placed on such a list, the court concluded that any alleged harm could not be linked to the company’s compliance or noncompliance with those requirements.
The opinion also noted that Thompson had expressly consented to receive the messages by initiating contact and confirming his opt-in. He never revoked that consent, despite being informed of how to do so.
As a result, the court found that he did not fall within the class of individuals the regulation is designed to protect, namely those who have indicated they do not wish to receive further communications.
In rejecting Thompson’s arguments, the court distinguished his case from others involving unsolicited communications, noting that those cases involved plaintiffs who had not provided consent. Here, the record showed Thompson had both initiated and confirmed his participation in the messaging program.
Because Thompson failed to establish standing, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment and declined to address the remaining issues raised on appeal, including the denial of class certification. The court also denied Genesco’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED113775
