In MacKinnon v. Hof’s Hut Restaurants, Inc.,  2017 WL 5754308, at *2 (E.D.Cal., 2017), the district court found that a confirming text with a “see specials” link was not an “advertisement” under the TCPA.

Defendant’s website did not constitute advertising or telemarketingsince it just informed plaintiff that joining a rewards program would result in freerewards points). Also, messages “whose purpose is to facilitate, complete, or confirm a commercial transaction that the recipient has previously agreed to enter into with the sender are not advertisements[.]” See In re Rules & Regs. Implementing the Tel. Consum. Prot. Act of 1991, 21 FCC Rcd. 3787, 3812 ¶ 49 (F.C.C.,Apr. 6, 2006); see also Wick v. Twilio Inc., No.C16-00914RSL,2017 WL 2964855 (W.D. Wash. July 12, 2017)(text message notifying the plaintiff that his order was incomplete and included a link to complete the order was not telemarketing because the message related to an order the plaintiff initiated). Similarly,Defendant’stext message to Plaintiff confirming his dinner reservation only served to confirm an expected commercial transaction (eating at Defendant’s restaurant)that Plaintiff had initiated. It was not an advertisement. In addition, the phrase “View specials”does not somehow convert the text message into an advertisement. Plaintiff initiatedthediningtransaction by making a reservationat Defendant’s restaurant. See Compl. ¶18. The linkto view specials(evenif it worked, which is apparentlydebated bythe parties)would have facilitatedPlaintiff’sdining transaction by allowing him to view specials on his cellphonebefore sitting down for dinner. See In re Rules & Regs.,21 FCC Rcd. at3812 ¶ 49 Finally, Plaintiff cites Pedro-Salcedo v. Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Co., No. 5:17-CV-03504-EJD, 2017 WL 4536422(N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) in support of his argument that Defendant’s text message was an advertisement or telemarketing, however, the case is from the Northern District of California and is not binding authority. Also,the facts are distinguishable from this case. In Pedro-Salcedo,theNorthern District of California found that the text message in that case arguably constituted an advertisement because the words “Thank you for joining Haagen-Dazs Rewards! Download our app here:.”meant that the transaction (registration for the rewards program)was complete without the text message. Id. at*1-2. Here, in contrast, Plaintiff received a text message that confirmed a reservation for an upcoming dinner that Plaintiff initiated. See Compl. ¶18. And the “View specials” link would have facilitated the transaction that Plaintiff initiated (eating dinner at Defendant’s restaurant). Plaintiff’s reliance on Pedro-Salcedo as persuasive or binding authority is, therefore,misplaced. The Court finds that Plaintiff did not receive an advertisement or telemarketing text message from Defendant.