DoorDash Robocall Class Action, Man Alleges 856 Prerecorded Calls After Asking Company to Stop

DoorDash, Inc. is facing a new federal lawsuit from a Florida man who says the company kept placing prerecorded calls to his personal cellphone even after he asked it to stop, and even after it allegedly confirmed in writing that the calls would end.

Zachary Muller, a Miami Beach resident, filed Muller v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-27941, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on November 9, 2026. According to a published summary of the complaint, he documented at least 856 prerecorded calls from at least 37 different phone numbers between September 2024 and August 2026. Most reportedly arrived around 8 a.m. Eastern (Miami Beach local time) and asked whether a DoorDash merchant location was open or closed.

Muller says he has no connection to any restaurant or store on DoorDash. The suit invokes the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, and Florida law. The TCPA allows $500 per qualifying violation, and up to $1,500 if a violation is found to be willful or knowing.

This is a putative class action, not a settlement. DoorDash has not been found liable, no class has been certified, and no one is currently owed money.

DoorDash Robocall Class Action: Key Facts

Detail	Information
Case	Zachary Muller v. DoorDash, Inc.
Case number	1:26-cv-27941
Court	U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
Filed	November 9, 2026
Plaintiff	Zachary Muller, Miami Beach, Florida
Defendant	DoorDash, Inc.
Plaintiff’s attorney (per docket)	Monique Nicole Reyes
Main allegation	Repeated prerecorded calls to a personal cellphone after stop requests
Calls alleged	At least 856, from at least 37 numbers
Call period	September 2024 to August 2026
Written assurance	Allegedly received October 2024
Federal claim	Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227
Other claims	Florida common-law claims
Statutory damages	$500 per qualifying violation; up to $1,500 if knowing or willful
Class certified?	No
Settlement or claim form?	None
Current status	Complaint filed; summons issued November 10, 2026

The federal docket confirms the filing, the parties, the court and the TCPA nature of the case. The specific figures (856 calls, 37 numbers, the October 2024 assurance and the proposed class definitions) come from a published summary of the complaint, not from a copy of the complaint itself. Check them against Docket Entry 1 before treating them as confirmed.

Why Is Zachary Muller Suing DoorDash?

The core allegation is that DoorDash treated Muller’s personal cellphone number as if it belonged to a participating restaurant. Instead of order updates, he says he got automated messages asking whether a store was open.

What did the 856 calls look like?

According to the complaint summary, the calls came from 37 different numbers over about two years. That detail matters in practice, because blocking one number would not stop calls from the others. It does not, on its own, show that DoorDash spoofed caller ID or deliberately rotated numbers to avoid blocking. That would take separate evidence.

What did DoorDash allegedly promise?

Muller says he contacted DoorDash repeatedly and that in October 2024 the company confirmed in writing he would receive no more calls. The calls allegedly continued into August 2026. That written message could become key evidence: it may help show DoorDash received and understood his request, and it may bear on whether any violation was willful. It does not decide those questions by itself.

Why Would DoorDash Call Someone Who Doesn’t Own a Restaurant?

The complaint summary does not explain how Muller’s number ended up in DoorDash’s calling system. Possible general explanations include a reassigned number that once belonged to a merchant, an incorrect number entered by a merchant, or outdated records. None of these has been confirmed as the cause here.

Is a “store open?” call telemarketing?

Not necessarily. A prerecorded call asking whether a restaurant is open may be informational rather than a sales pitch. That matters because telemarketing robocalls generally need prior express written consent, while informational robocalls to cellphones generally need prior express consent. Either way, the consent has to come from the right person and has to still be valid when the call is made.

What if the number used to belong to a restaurant?

Under Eleventh Circuit law, which governs Florida federal courts, the “called party” is generally the current subscriber, not the person the caller meant to reach. See Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2014). The D.C. Circuit also struck down the FCC’s “one-call” safe harbor for reassigned numbers in ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The FCC’s Reassigned Numbers Database, with its own safe harbor for callers who check it, is at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(m). Whether DoorDash used it is unknown.

Related article: Yella Beezy Found Guilty of Capital Murder in MO3 Killing, Life Without Parole Sentence, $40,000 Murder-for-Hire Evidence and What Happens Next

Who Could Qualify for the DoorDash Robocall Class Action?

Muller seeks to represent people who allegedly received similar prerecorded merchant-status calls from DoorDash after asking it to stop. According to the complaint summary, the proposed groups are:

1. A nationwide class of people who received similar calls more than ten business days after asking DoorDash to stop.
2. A written-confirmation subclass of people who kept getting calls after DoorDash confirmed in writing they would end.
3. A Florida subclass tied to the written-confirmation allegations.

The reported class period reaches back four years from the filing date. These are proposed definitions only. A judge can narrow them, change them, or refuse to certify any class.

Do you have to be a DoorDash customer?

Not under the theory described. Muller’s position is that his number had no link to any DoorDash merchant. Whether any particular person qualifies would depend on their call records, the law, and a future certification ruling.

How Much Can Someone Get Per Robocall Under the TCPA?

Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), a person who receives a covered unlawful call can sue for actual monetary loss or $500 per violation, whichever is greater. If the court finds the violation was willful or knowing, it may increase the award to up to three times that amount, or $1,500 per call.

Remedy	Potential amount
Ordinary qualifying violation	$500 per call
Willful or knowing violation	Up to $1,500 per call (court’s discretion)
Injunction	Possible order limiting unlawful calls
Florida common-law claims	Depends on the proven claim and harm

What would 856 calls be worth?

As a pure illustration: 856 calls at $500 is $428,000, and at $1,500 is $1,284,000. Those are statutory arithmetic, not amounts awarded to Muller or demanded in his complaint. A court would have to decide which calls are covered, whether consent existed, when it was revoked, and whether enhanced damages are warranted.

Does every unwanted call pay $500?

No. The TCPA is not a payment for every annoying call. The technology used, the recipient’s consent, the purpose of the call and any exceptions all matter.

What Does the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Say About Robocalls?

Congress passed the TCPA in 1991. It is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227 and implemented by FCC rules at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. Federal courts have jurisdiction over private TCPA suits under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (2012).

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii): prerecorded calls to cellphones

This section generally bars calls to a cellular number that use an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice without the required consent, unless an exception applies. In Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021), the Supreme Court read the autodialer definition narrowly. But the prerecorded-voice prohibition is separate, so a claim based on prerecorded calls does not depend on proving an autodialer.

Can an informational robocall violate the TCPA?

Yes. Informational calls are treated differently from telemarketing, but they are not exempt from the cellphone prerecorded-call rules. A reminder to someone who authorized it is one thing. The same message sent over and over to a stranger’s phone is another.

Do courts have to follow the FCC’s reading of the TCPA?

Not automatically anymore. In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. (U.S. 2025), the Supreme Court held that district courts are not bound by the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA in enforcement proceedings and must interpret the statute themselves, giving the agency’s view appropriate respect. That could matter in a case like this, where both sides may lean on FCC consent and revocation rules.

Is the Do Not Call Registry the basis for this case?

No, and the distinction matters. The National Do Not Call Registry rules apply principally to telemarketing. Courts are also divided on whether cellphone users can sue under the Do Not Call provisions of § 227(c) at all. In September 2026, a Southern District of Florida court held that cellphone users are not “residential telephone subscribers” under those provisions (Anthony v. Brian Marketing Group, No. 24-80800-CIV (S.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2026)). Muller’s reported theory is about prerecorded calls and consent, which is § 227(b), so that ruling does not control it.

How Long Does DoorDash Have to Honor a Stop Request?

The answer depends on when each call was made.

• Before April 11, 2025: Federal courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, already recognized that consent to be called can be revoked by any reasonable means. See Osorio, 746 F.3d 1242.
• From April 11, 2025: The FCC’s 2024 order (FCC 24-24) took effect for most purposes, requiring callers to honor revocation requests made by reasonable means within a reasonable time, not to exceed ten business days. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10).
• The “revoke-all” piece: The FCC’s separate requirement that one opt-out cover all robocalls and texts from the same caller requiring consent was delayed, first to April 11, 2026 and then to January 31, 2027.
• November 25, 2026: The FCC adopted amendments on September 30, 2026, published them at 91 Fed. Reg. 67214 on October 26, 2026, and they take effect November 25, 2026. For informational calls, a caller may treat an opt-out as limited to the category of calls the person meant to stop, and callers may designate certain exclusive opt-out methods under stated conditions. Telemarketing calls remain under the broader revoke-all approach.

Because Muller’s documented calls allegedly ran from September 2024 to August 2026, the November 25 changes should not be described as governing those calls. The key factual question is whether DoorDash kept placing the same type of merchant-status calls after valid stop requests.

What Florida Laws Could Apply?

The complaint reportedly includes Florida common-law claims alongside the TCPA count. The full complaint is needed to confirm exactly which ones.

Florida intrusion upon seclusion

Florida recognizes an invasion-of-privacy tort for intrusion into private affairs. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 2003). Whether repeated unwanted calls meet that standard depends on the facts and Florida case law.

Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.059

The FTSA regulates telephonic sales calls and includes a private right of action. A merchant-status check is not obviously a sales call, so this case should not be labeled an FTSA case just because the plaintiff lives in Florida. Florida also narrowed the FTSA’s automated-calling provisions in 2023.

Florida harassing-calls statute, Fla. Stat. § 365.16

This criminal statute covers certain obscene or harassing calls made with the required intent. It is separate from the civil TCPA claim, and no criminal charge against DoorDash has been reported.

Why Might the October 2024 Written Confirmation Matter?

A company accused of robocalling after a stop request often disputes whether a valid request was made, whether it reached the right team, or whether the calls came from a vendor. A written confirmation that calls would stop can support the plaintiff’s argument that the company received and understood the request. Questions discovery could answer include:

• Was Muller’s number removed from the calling list, and when?
• Did multiple internal systems or outside vendors use the number?
• Did customer support pass the opt-out to the team running the calls?
• Were the calls triggered by wrong merchant records?
• Who placed the calls? Under Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016), a company can face vicarious TCPA liability under federal agency principles for calls placed by others.

These are questions for discovery, not findings.

Has DoorDash Been Sued Over Robocalls Before?

Yes. Earlier complaints made similar allegations. They are allegations only, and this article has not verified how each case ended.

Case	Filed	Allegation (as reported)
Binbek v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-3729 (N.D. Ill.)	2022	Prerecorded calls to a cellphone from someone with no DoorDash affiliation; nearly 250 calls reported in six months
Rodgers v. DoorDash Inc., No. 3:23-cv-05564 (W.D. Wash.)	June 2023	Prerecorded merchant-status calls to non-customers who allegedly asked DoorDash to stop
Johnson v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-06449 (N.D. Cal.)	Sept. 13, 2024	Prerecorded calls asking a non-restaurant owner to sign up; stop requests allegedly ignored
Wallace v. DoorDash, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)	Nov. 25, 2024	More than 500 robocalls reported, allegedly beginning in 2021

Those filings do not prove DoorDash has an unlawful practice. The plaintiffs, call histories and procedural records differ. They do show that similar claims keep being made about how DoorDash maintains merchant phone data and handles stop requests.

What Has DoorDash Said About the Muller Lawsuit?

No substantive public response to the 856-call allegations was found as of November 12, 2026. The docket showed the complaint and a summons issued November 10. DoorDash may challenge the call count, who placed the calls, consent, the content of the messages, the validity of the stop requests or class certification, but those are possible defenses, not statements it has made.

If DoorDash agreed to arbitrate disputes in its terms of service with customers, couriers or merchants, it could try to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. A plaintiff who says he never used DoorDash would argue he never agreed to any such terms. Nothing in the reviewed materials shows whether that issue will come up here.

Is the DoorDash Robocall Lawsuit a Settlement?

No. It is an active putative class action.

Question	Status
Court-approved settlement	No
Settlement fund	None verified
Official claim form	None
Claim administrator	None
Payment per person	Not determined
Claim deadline	None
Class certified	No
Liability finding	No

Be cautious about sites promising automatic DoorDash robocall payments. The $500 and $1,500 figures come from the federal statute. They are not settlement checks.

What Should You Do If DoorDash Keeps Calling Your Phone?

1. Save your call log. Screenshot the dates, times and numbers, including every number if calls come from several.
2. Keep voicemails. Recordings can show whether the voice was prerecorded and what the message was about.
3. Send a clear stop request through DoorDash’s official support channels. Say it is your personal cellphone, you do not operate the merchant being called, and you do not authorize more calls. Record the date and channel.
4. Keep any written reply. Save emails, chat transcripts and screenshots of any confirmation.
5. Report the calls. File with the FCC at consumercomplaints.fcc.gov and the FTC at DoNotCall.gov. A complaint does not enroll you in a lawsuit or earn individual damages.
6. Talk to a consumer-protection or TCPA attorney about your facts. Federal TCPA claims generally carry a four-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 1658, though accrual and tolling can change the analysis.

For related coverage, see AT&T, State Farm and CVS Hit With Five TCPA Text Message Class Actions and Comenity Capital Bank “Tax Services” Robocalls, Is There Actually a Lawsuit?.

Do 8 a.m. Calls Violate TCPA Calling-Hour Rules?

Not automatically. Federal telemarketing rules generally allow covered sales calls between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. at the recipient’s location, so a call around 8 a.m. is not clearly outside that window. The merchant-status calls here may also be informational rather than telemarketing. The stronger reported issue is consent and the alleged failure to stop, not the hour.

What Happens Next in Muller v. DoorDash?

The case is at the earliest stage. After service, a defendant generally has 21 days to respond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i), or 60 days if it waives service under Rule 4(d). Likely next steps are a response or a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), discovery, and a motion for class certification.

What must Muller show to get a class certified?

Under Rule 23(a), the court looks at numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequate representation. For a damages class, Rule 23(b)(3) adds that common questions must predominate and a class action must be the superior method. DoorDash would likely argue that consent and revocation vary person to person. A Southern District of Florida court certified a prerecorded-call class on September 28, 2026 in Duverger v. Real Estate Sales Force Inc., No. 1:25-cv-20002 (S.D. Fla.), while declining to certify a Do Not Call class, so outcomes depend heavily on the proof.

Can Muller’s claims be dismissed?

Yes. A court can dismiss claims that do not state a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6). A defendant may also challenge standing; the Supreme Court addressed concrete-injury requirements in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), while the en banc Eleventh Circuit held in Drazen v. Pinto, 74 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2023), that a single unwanted text message can be enough for standing. Hundreds of alleged calls would likely be a stronger standing showing than that.

What evidence could matter most?

• DoorDash’s outbound call logs and vendor records
• The recordings or scripts of the prerecorded messages
• The dates and wording of Muller’s stop requests
• The October 2024 written assurance
• Internal merchant-contact records and how the number got there
• Evidence of consent or removal from calling lists
• Whether other people got similar calls

No discovery findings have been confirmed.

DoorDash Robocall Lawsuit Timeline

Date	Development
2022	Binbek v. DoorDash filed in Illinois
June 2023	Rodgers v. DoorDash filed in Washington
Sept. 2024	Muller allegedly begins receiving documented calls; Johnson v. DoorDash filed in California
Oct. 2024	DoorDash allegedly confirms in writing the calls will stop
Nov. 25, 2024	Wallace v. DoorDash filed in California
April 11, 2025	FCC’s 2024 revocation rules take effect for most provisions
Aug. 2026	End of the call period in the Muller complaint summary
Sept. 30, 2026	FCC adopts amended revocation rules
Oct. 26, 2026	FCC rule published at 91 Fed. Reg. 67214
Nov. 9, 2026	Muller files putative class action
Nov. 10, 2026	Summons issued
Nov. 25, 2026	Amended FCC revocation rules take effect

Frequently Asked Questions About the DoorDash Robocall Lawsuit

Is DoorDash being sued over unwanted robocalls?

Yes. Zachary Muller filed a putative class action on November 9, 2026, alleging at least 856 prerecorded calls to his personal cellphone.

Why was DoorDash allegedly calling him?

The calls reportedly asked whether a DoorDash merchant location was open or closed. Muller says he has no connection to any participating restaurant or store.

Did DoorDash promise to stop the calls?

Muller alleges DoorDash confirmed in writing in October 2024 that the calls would stop, and that they continued anyway.

Can you sue DoorDash for prerecorded calls?

Potentially. A person may have a TCPA claim if a covered prerecorded call was made to a cellphone without the required consent or after valid revocation, subject to defenses and exceptions.

How much can someone get per illegal robocall?

The TCPA provides $500 per qualifying violation, up to $1,500 if willful or knowing. Nothing has been awarded in this case.

Does the lawsuit cover people who never used DoorDash?

Potentially. The alleged pattern involves people with no relationship to DoorDash receiving merchant calls. The court has not approved any class.

Does the lawsuit cover all 50 states?

The proposed nationwide class is not limited to Florida, and a Florida subclass is also described. Final membership has not been set.

Do I need to register to join?

There is no settlement registration. If a class is certified and a settlement is later approved, the court would order notice and a claims process.

Does the TCPA cover informational calls?

Certain informational prerecorded calls to cellphones require consent. The rules and exceptions differ from telemarketing.

Does the FCC’s ten-business-day rule apply to these calls?

It depends on each call’s date. Revocation by reasonable means was recognized before April 11, 2025, and the ten-business-day timeline took effect that day.

Do the November 25, 2026 FCC changes apply to Muller’s calls?

Not as described. His alleged calls ended in August 2026, before the amended rules take effect.

What is the deadline to bring a TCPA claim?

Federal TCPA claims are generally subject to a four-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 1658. Accrual and tolling can vary, so ask an attorney.

Has DoorDash responded?

No substantive public response was verified as of November 12, 2026.

Who represents Muller?

The docket identifies Monique Nicole Reyes as the attorney who filed the complaint.

Why the DoorDash Lawsuit Matters

The case asks what happens when a company’s automated calling system keeps reaching a number that has no connection to its merchant, and whether the company acted on a stop request. It may also test whether people with similar experiences can proceed together under Rule 23. The answer will turn on the call records and the law.

The November 9 lawsuit establishes a real federal dispute. It does not establish that DoorDash violated the TCPA, and it does not mean anyone is currently entitled to compensation.

Sources and Legal Authorities

Court records

1. Muller v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-27941 (S.D. Fla.) docket; original complaint is Docket Entry 1.
2. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
3. Rodgers v. DoorDash Inc., complaint (June 26, 2023)
4. Johnson v. DoorDash, Inc., complaint (Sept. 13, 2024)
5. Binbek v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-3729 (N.D. Ill.), complaint
6. Wallace v. DoorDash, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2024)

Statutes, rules and FCC orders

7. 47 U.S.C. § 227
8. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200
9. FCC 24-24 (2024 revocation order); FCC waivers delaying the revoke-all provision to January 31, 2027
10. FCC Report and Order adopted September 30, 2026, published at 91 Fed. Reg. 67214 (Oct. 26, 2026), effective November 25, 2026
11. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; Rules 4, 12(a) and 12(b)(6)
12. 28 U.S.C. § 1658; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
13. Fla. Stat. § 501.059; Fla. Stat. § 365.16

Cases

14. Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021)
15. McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. (U.S. 2025)
16. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016); Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (2012)
17. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016); TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021); Drazen v. Pinto, 74 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2023)
18. Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2014); ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018)
19. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 2003)
20. Anthony v. Brian Marketing Group, No. 24-80800-CIV (S.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2026); Duverger v. Real Estate Sales Force Inc., No. 1:25-cv-20002 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2026)

Consumer resources

21. FCC: Unwanted Calls and Texts
22. FTC: National Do Not Call Registry FAQs

Verification note: The docket confirms the filing, parties, court and TCPA nature of the case. The 856-call figure, 37 numbers, October 2024 assurance and proposed class definitions come from a published complaint summary. Verify them against Docket Entry 1 and its exhibit before relying on them as firsthand-reviewed.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the Southern District of Florida docket, the Federal Communications Commission’s published rules and orders, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the cited court filings and decisions, as of November 12, 2026. Last Updated: November 12, 2026.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by state and individual circumstances differ. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney. The allegations against DoorDash have not been proven, no class has been certified, and no settlement claims process is available.