There has been a fair amount of exasperation over "robocalls" in the runup to the election.  (See, e.g., here and here.)  The basic tactic is to make it appear as if the call is made on behalf of an opponent.  Call enough, and at inconvenient times, and turn off potential voters who would likely vote for your opponent.  (Philadelphia Daily News here.)

This brings the discussion about the FreeEats injunction into clearer focus.   These types of automated calls fall under an FCC exception to the autodialer rules.  Several states, such as Indiana, do not have a similar state law exception -- these calls are prohibited under state law, absent consent.   FreeEats brought suit in federal court to enjoin enforcement of the state law.  The judge ruled on the request for an injunction notwithstanding the existence of an ongoing state proceeding.  Maybe the judge got the sense that robocall campaigns would be stepped during this season's campaign?

Arguably the calls in question -- while allowed under the TCPA -- can still be considered misleading, and therefore objectionable under some other provision of the statute or some other rule.   It's tough to say.

Either way, expect to see some proposals to change or eliminate the FCC exception.  

More:  DMNews has more here:  States Enforce Limits on Robocalls:

With the elections nearing, the number of news items about the use of technology to automate the delivery of political messages is rising. Florida Rep. Stan Jordan, a Republican, recently announced that he was drafting a bill to extend the state’s do-not-call program to calls that deliver political prerecorded messages. Such bills have been introduced regularly in the past few years, but as more complaints filter in regarding the use of these calls, expect to see political “robocalls” fall under increasing regulation.

I think addressing the federal (FCC created) exception is nevertheless still important, given the ambiguity addressed in the FreeEats case.