In Santino v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., Judge Curtin held, here, that the TCPA does not regulate land-line collection activities by a debt collector. After surveying the TCPA’s regulatory history, Judge Curtin concluded:

In addition, several decisions subsequent to Watson provide support for defendant’s position that prerecorded calls intended solely for the collection of a debt–even calls received by non-debtors–are specifically exempted from the TCPA’s coverage by rule and order of the FCC. See Meadows v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc., 2010 WL 2605048, at *6 (N.D. Ala. June 25, 2010) (FCC’s determination that all debt collection circumstances are excluded from TCPA’s coverage is broad enough to cover debt collection calls to non-debtor), aff’d in relevant part, 2011 WL 479997 (11th Cir. Feb. 11, 2011); Pugliese v. Professional Recovery Service, Inc., 2010 WL 2632562, at *7 (E.D. Mi. June 29, 2010) (automated debt collection calls made to plaintiffs’ residential telephone line are exempt from the TCPA’s requirements) (citing Bates v. I.C. Systems, Inc., 2009 WL 3459740, *1 (W.D.N.Y., Oct.19, 2009) (“[D]ebt collection calls made to a residential line are exempt from the TCPA.”)). Indeed, in the Meadows case, both the district and circuit courts specifically rejected the argument that the exemptions established by the FCC for debt collection calls do not apply to non-debtors. According to the Eleventh Circuit: [B]ecause [the debt collection agency] had an existing business relationship with the intended recipient of its prerecorded calls, and the calls were made for a commercial, non-solicitation purpose, . . . those calls are exempt from the TCPA’s prohibitions of prerecorded calls to residences. . . . [T]he FCC has determined that all debt-collection circumstances are excluded from the TCPA’s coverage, and thus the exemptions apply when a debt collector contacts a non-debtor in an effort to collect a debt. Otherwise, a debt collector that used a prerecorded message would violate the TCPA if it called the debtor’s number and another member of the debtor’s family answered. Meadows, 2011 WL 479997, at *4. Finally, to the extent plaintiffs seek a ruling regarding the validity of the FCC’s rulings on the scope of the debt collection exemptions, this court is without jurisdiction to do so. See, e.g, Leckler v. Cashcall, Inc., 2008 WL 5000528, at *2-3 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 21, 2008) (Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2342, in conjunction with judicial review provisions of Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 402(a), vests federal courts of appeals with exclusive jurisdiction to determine validity of final orders of the FCC). Based on this analysis, the court concludes that the conduct on the part of defendant complained of in this case fits squarely within the exemption provided in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2)(iii), as interpreted by the FCC in the 1992, 1995, and 2008 Rulings described above. Accordingly, plaintiff’s TCPA claim is implausible on its face, and defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted dismissing this claim as a matter of law.