Palm Beach Tan to Pay $2.5 Million to Settle TCPA Texting Lawsuit
The company agreed to pay $2.5 million to resolve claims it sent text messages after receiving stop requests.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 2, 2026, 12:46 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 2, 2026, 12:46 p.m. ETFirst report
Palm Beach Tan to Pay $2.5 Million to Settle TCPA Texting Lawsuit
Palm Beach Tan, Inc. has agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle a lawsuit alleging it sent text messages after receiving stop notifications, according to a litigation release reported by the National Law Review.
The settlement, which is subject to court approval, provides up to $1,500 per class member. The case, Hudson v. Palm Beach Tan, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00486-UA-JEP, was filed in district court. The company consented to the settlement; the court has not yet approved it.
The lawsuit alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for sending SMS messages after consumers had requested to stop receiving them. The allegations are claims in a lawsuit and have not been proven in court.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 16:46current
First published.
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 16:52current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.