Short answer: It depends on where you are sued. On July 14, 2026 the Seventh Circuit held in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call private right of action, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), covers “telephone call[s]” and not text messages, so a consumer cannot sue under that section over marketing texts sent to a number on the National Do Not Call Registry. District courts in Missouri and Colorado have followed it. A federal court in Pennsylvania reached the opposite conclusion in June. The ruling does not affect the TCPA’s separate autodialer and prerecorded-voice restrictions in § 227(b), which courts continue to apply to texts, and it does not stop the FCC from enforcing its Do-Not-Call rules.
Why is this question open now?
For years courts treated a text as a “call” under the TCPA, largely by deferring to the FCC, which said so in 2003 and repeatedly afterward. In June 2025 the Supreme Court held in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. that district courts are not bound by the FCC’s interpretation of the statute and must decide its meaning for themselves. Defendants facing text-only Do-Not-Call class actions began arguing that “telephone call” in § 227(c)(5) means a voice call.
Section 227(c)(5) gives a private right of action to a person who “has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations.” The question is what “telephone call” meant when Congress wrote it in 1991.
What did the Seventh Circuit decide in Steidinger?
Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), was an appeal from the Central District of Illinois. The plaintiffs alleged they received marketing texts at numbers on the Do Not Call Registry. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal. It read § 227(c)(5) as covering telephone calls but not messages, and noted that elsewhere in the same statute Congress used “call or message” when it meant both. It closed:
“Repeated, unwanted text messages are undoubtedly a nuisance. But they do not fall within the private right of action created by § 227(c)(5). Instead, spam messages may be curbed through agency action pursuant to other provisions of § 227, which we leave undisturbed.”
The decision binds federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.
Which courts agree, and which disagree?
| Court | Case | Date | Texts covered by § 227(c)? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7th Circuit | Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 | July 14, 2026 | No |
| W.D. Missouri | Rush v. SelectQuote Insurance Services, No. 6:26-cv-03157 | July 30, 2026 | No |
| D. Colorado | Brown v. Hursh Group, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-00185 | Sept. 28, 2026 | No (dismissed with prejudice) |
| E.D. Pennsylvania | Pero v. Brown-Daub Chevrolet of Nazareth, No. 2:25-cv-07016 | June 17, 2026 | Yes |
In Rush, the court was blunt about the FCC’s role after McLaughlin: “the plain and ordinary meaning of § 227(c)(5) is clear: ‘text messages’ are not ‘telephone calls.’ Only Congress can expand the breadth of § 227(c)(5).” In Brown, the court followed Steidinger and held “the term ‘telephone call,’ as used in § 227(c)(5), does not encompass text messages.”
In Pero, decided a month before Steidinger, Judge Savage looked at the same statute, the FCC’s regulations and the case law and concluded: “Considering the statutory language, the FCC regulations, and the decisions of an overwhelming majority of courts, we hold that a text message is a call for purposes of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c).”
No federal court of appeals has yet disagreed with Steidinger, and the Supreme Court has not taken up the question. A circuit split would make that more likely.
What does the split not change?
Section 227(b) still applies to texts. The autodialer and artificial or prerecorded voice restrictions are a different provision with different wording. In Howard v. Republican National Committee, No. 23-3826 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026), the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that “a text message is properly deemed to be a ‘call’ within the meaning of the TCPA” for § 227(b), even though it held that the particular video texts in that case were not prerecorded-voice calls. Texts that use an autodialer still need consent.
Federal enforcement is untouched. Steidinger concerns only who can sue privately under § 227(c)(5). The FCC’s Do-Not-Call rules, and state attorneys general, are unaffected.
State laws apply. Several states have their own telemarketing and do-not-call statutes that expressly cover text messages, with their own private rights of action. A text campaign that is safe from a federal Do-Not-Call class action in Illinois can still be exposed under state law.
Most of the country is undecided. Outside the Seventh Circuit, district courts are split, and most have historically treated texts as calls.
What should SMS marketers and lead buyers do?
- Do not change your Do-Not-Call practices because of Steidinger. Keep scrubbing against the National Registry and your internal list. The ruling protects defendants in three states from one kind of private lawsuit.
- Keep consent records for every texted number. A consumer who gave prior express written consent to the seller is not a Do-Not-Call violation in any circuit. Consent is the defense that works everywhere, and it only works if you can produce it: the disclosure the consumer saw, the seller named, the time, the page.
- Honor opt-outs quickly. Revocation rules apply to texts regardless of this split. See The FCC Replaced the Revoke-All Rule.
- Know where your exposure is. If you text consumers nationwide, assume the stricter rule.
Sources
- Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026): ca7.uscourts.gov
- Rush v. SelectQuote Insurance Services, No. 6:26-cv-03157 (W.D. Mo. July 30, 2026), ECF No. 28: CourtListener
- Brown v. Hursh Group, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-00185 (D. Colo. Sept. 28, 2026), ECF No. 22: govinfo.gov
- Pero v. Brown-Daub Chevrolet of Nazareth, No. 2:25-cv-07016 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2026), ECF No. 13: govinfo.gov
- Howard v. Republican National Committee, No. 23-3826 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026): ca9.uscourts.gov
- 47 U.S.C. § 227: law.cornell.edu
This article is general information, not legal advice. Talk to TCPA counsel about your own program.