"We're Just the Platform!" — A Court Explains Why That Might Not Be Enough
A common question we see is about platform liability. When is a software provider—a messaging platform, a dialer vendor, a CPaaS—liable for the calls or texts its client sends?
A recent case out of the District of Colorado, Connor v. Servicequick Inc. and Woosender, INC., (2025 WL 2855393) gives us a clear look at how a platform can get roped into a TCPA lawsuit, and what it takes to survive that first motion to dismiss.
In this case, the plaintiff sued ServiceQuik for allegedly sending text messages to a number on the national Do-Not-Call registry. But they didn't just sue ServiceQuik; they also sued Woosender, the text-messaging platform ServiceQuik used.
The “Passive Conduit” Defense: The Platform's Argument
Woosender filed a motion to dismiss, making an argument we hear all the time: "We're just the platform!".
Their motion argued that the plaintiff's own complaint admitted the texts were "sent by ServiceQuik". Woosender claimed it was merely a platform, and the plaintiff was trying to hold it liable just for being "involved in the calling conduct," which isn't the standard.
The court, however, disagreed and denied Woosender's motion.
When a Platform "Initiates" a Call
The court's analysis hinged on who "initiates" a call.
Under the TCPA regulations, "no person or entity is permitted to initiate any telephone solicitation" to a number on the DNC list.
The court referenced the key FCC definition: An entity "initiate[s]" a call "when it takes the steps necessary to physically place a telephone call". So, did the plaintiff plausibly allege that Woosender took those steps? The court said yes.
The key allegations that saved the plaintiff's claim against the platform were:
The text messages he received were "sent using [Woosender's] platform at Defendant ServiceQuik's direction".
Woosender's service "goes [f]ar beyond merely providing the platform that enables them to send messages" and includes "actually setting up and providing intimate support for their customers' campaigns and strategies".
That second allegation is the kicker. The court found these claims, combined, were "sufficient to establish a 'direct connection' between Woosender and the transmission of the at issue texts". Because of this, the case against Woosender couldn't be dismissed.
Your 3-Minute Legal Takeaway: What This Means for Your Platform?
Let's be very clear about what this means. This is not a final ruling on the merits. The court did not find Woosender liable for the texts. This was a motion to dismiss. The only thing the court decided was that the plaintiff alleged enough facts to state a claim and proceed to discovery.
But it's a huge roadmap for plaintiffs and a critical warning for platforms. The line seems to be between being a passive conduit (just providing neutral software) and an active participant.
When a plaintiff alleges a platform does more than just provide the tech—when they allege the platform is involved in "setting up" or providing "intimate support" for a client's "campaigns and strategies"—it becomes much harder for that platform to get the case thrown out early.
This creates tension for companies that offer texting or communications platforms: where is the line between being a good partner to help your clients get the most out of your service versus crossing the line and being a participant in your client’s business?
As an immediate next step, platform owners should think through the following:
Audit Your Service Model: How much “hand holding” are we doing? Are we making the decisions or implementing the decisions?
Review Support Training: Where is the line between good customer service and strategic campaign involvement?
Re-evaluate Your Contracts: This is the big one. Ensure your contracts adequately assigns your role as a technology provider and adjusts your risks accordingly.
