United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-1304 AMBASSADOR ANIMAL HOSPITAL, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH INC. and ELI LILLY & CO., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 20-cv-2886 — Mary M. Rowland, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED OCTOBER 28, 2022 — DECIDED JULY 24, 2023 ____________________

Before SCUDDER, KIRSCH, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges. KIRSCH, Circuit Judge. Ambassador Animal Hospital, Ltd., brought a putative class action suit against Elanco Animal Health Inc. and its parent company Eli Lilly & Co., alleging that Elanco sent Ambassador two unsolicited fax advertise- ments in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. The district court dismissed the amended 2 No. 22-1304 complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that the faxes did not constitute unsolicited advertisements under the TCPA. We affirm, holding that the faxes do not indicate—di- rectly or indirectly—to a reasonable recipient that Elanco was promoting or selling some good, service, or property as re- quired by the TCPA. I Elanco Animal Health (an animal health products and ser- vices company) sent Ambassador Animal Hospital two unso- licited faxes inviting Ambassador’s veterinarians and its owner to RSVP for two free dinner programs. The faxes listed the topics of the dinner programs—one titled “Canine and Fe- line Disease Prevention Hot Topics” and the other “Rethink- ing Management of Osteoarthritis”—and indicated that both programs had been approved for continuing education cred- its. The faxes also provided the names of the programs’ pre- senters. The top left and bottom right corners of each invita- tion included the trademarked “Elanco” logo, and the bottom of each fax contained a notice encouraging recipients to con- sult their state or federal regulations or ethics laws about re- strictions on accepting industry-provided educational and food items. Ambassador filed suit in state court, alleging violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 and state law. Ambassador argued that the two faxes were unsolicited advertisements under the TCPA because the free dinner programs were used to market or sell Elanco’s animal health goods and services. Elanco re- moved the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court dismissed the No. 22-1304 3 TCPA claim with prejudice and relinquished jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). II We review Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo, accepting all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drawing all rea- sonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Rock River Health Care, LLC v. Eagleson, 14 F.4th 768, 772 (7th Cir. 2021). We also review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Bern- stein v. Bankert, 733 F.3d 190, 199 (7th Cir. 2013). With limited exceptions not relevant here, the TCPA pro- hibits sending unsolicited advertisements by fax without the recipient’s consent. 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(5), (b)(1)(C). The TCPA defines an unsolicited advertisement as “any material adver- tising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission.” Id. § 227(a)(5). The sole question in this case is whether the two faxes Elanco sent to Amb