For the first time, a federal appellate court has held that the plain language of the "do not call" provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) means just that: enrollment on the list applies only to calls, not text messages. In a much-anticipated decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has shut the door on claims that text messages are calls under the TCPA, at least when it comes to "do not call" list claims brought under Section 227(c)(5) of the statute.
The case, Steidinger et al. v. Blackstone Medical Services, was a putative consolidated class action alleging violations of the TCPA (and Florida's similar Telephone Solicitation Act) based on the receipt of unwanted marketing text messages. The plaintiffs alleged that they continued to receive these text messages even after opting out by replying "STOP" or adding themselves to the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The suit alleged violations of 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA and Fla. Stat. Section 501.059(5) and sought recovery of damages, among other relief. Blackstone moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that text messages are not covered by Section 227(c)(5), which specifically applies to "telephone calls." The district court agreed with Blackstone and granted the motion to dismiss, and the appeal to the Seventh Circuit followed.
In its July 14, 2026, decision, the Seventh Circuit cut right to the chase, confirming in no uncertain terms that Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA does not allow consumers to sue for receiving unwanted text messages following "do not call" enrollment. The court further confirmed that this section's specific reference to unwanted telephone calls precludes an automatic extension to cover text messages. The Seventh Circuit relied on principles of ordinary statutory interpretation, as directed by the United States Supreme Court in the wake of McLaughlin. The court relied on the ordinary public meaning of "telephone call" at the time of the TCPA's enactment in 1991, as well as the context provided by the other provisions of Section 227(c) of the TCPA, to reach its well-founded conclusion.
The Seventh Circuit's decision will likely tee up a circuit split that may eventually find its way to the United States Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit, even after McLaughlin, has doubled down on its interpretation of the TCPA (as a whole) – including the "do not call" provisions – to cover text messages in Howard v. Republican National Committee.
So, what should operators of text messaging programs do now? For the most part, they should likely continue existing business practices designed to safeguard against TCPA liability, including running campaigns against the National Do-Not-Call Registry and maintaining internal do-not-call lists, particularly for operators communicating with consumers in California. State-level "mini-TCPAs" will likely become more relevant, which may serve to increase the regulatory burden on operators.
The Seventh Circuit's decision is not yet final. The plaintiffs still have time to seek rehearing en banc or petition the United States Supreme Court for review based on the perceived split with the Ninth Circuit. While we expect to see Section 227(c)(5) claims filed in the Seventh Circuit dropped, until there is other appellate case law to bind the lower courts, the legal theory may still be pursued in much of the country.
If you have questions about the TCPA, state-law "mini-TCPAs," or your business's compliance with these consumer protection laws, please contact Eve A. Cann, Evan M. Sauda, or your regular Baker Donelson attorney.