United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-1623 JAMES C. HULCE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. ZIPONGO INC., Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 23-cv-159 — Lynn Adelman, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 2024 — DECIDED MARCH 17, 2025 ____________________

Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir- cuit Judges. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Zipongo Inc., which does business as Foodsmart, called and texted James Hulce about free nutri- tional services it offered through Hulce’s state and Medicaid funded healthcare plan. In response, Hulce brought a puta- tive class action suit against Foodsmart alleging that it vio- lated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and 2 No. 24-1623 the TCPA’s implementing regulations by initiating prohibited “telephone solicitations.” After finding that the calls and messages Hulce received did not fall within the meaning of “telephone solicitation,” the district court granted Foodsmart’s motion for summary judg- ment. We affirm. Foodsmart did not initiate communications with Hulce for the purpose of encouraging someone who makes the purchasing decision to purchase its services. I Foodsmart is a for-profit company that provides nutri- tional consultations to individuals. These consultations can include dietary assessments, cost-effective meal planning, and help enrolling in government assistance programs. While individuals can sign up for Foodsmart’s services directly, Foodsmart focuses its efforts on contracting with healthcare plans that offer its consultations to plan members. Chorus Community Healthcare Plans (“CCHP”) is one such healthcare plan. CCHP and Foodsmart agreed that Foodsmart would provide its services at no cost to CCHP members. This meant that members would not pay any fee, copay, or coinsurance for Foodsmart’s services. Instead, Foodsmart would bill CCHP if a plan member met with a reg- istered dietician. For members who received benefits through Medicaid, CCHP would also pay Foodsmart a yearly fee per Foodsmart patient or app user and performance bonuses if its plan members met certain health metrics. James Hulce used CCHP as his healthcare plan during the period relevant to this suit. He selected CCHP through his en- rollment in BadgerCare Plus, a healthcare program funded by the State of Wisconsin and Medicaid. No. 24-1623 3

Hulce alleged that he received approximately twenty calls and text messages from Foodsmart—all while his name was on the national do-not-call registry. As one example, Foodsmart, through a contracted call service, left Hulce the following voicemail: Hi James, this is Cassandra. I’m calling on behalf of the Children’s Community Health Plan and [F]oodsmart to let you know about a giveaway [] we are currently running as part of your CCH[P] membership. You could be entered to $100 [sic] by participating in the zero cost Telehealth visit and completing a nutritional assessment. Please call us back … as soon possible so we can get you entered into the giveaway. Hulce also received a text message from Foodsmart: October is the month of sweet treats & pumpkin spice everything. Make meeting with a personal dietician part of your Fall routine & balance your blood sugar Bundle Up! Get a $25 gift card when you complete a no cost visit in Oct., and $25 for taking the Foodsmart Nu- triquiz! The text message included