Last week, the Seventh Circuit ruled in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that text messages are not “telephone calls” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) Do-Not-Call rules. Those rules let consumers sue over more than one telemarketing call in a 12-month period after registering on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Because the law only covers “calls,” the court held that consumers cannot use it to sue over unwanted texts, no matter how many they receive.
This matters for any company running SMS or telemarketing campaigns, but the ruling is narrower than it may sound. Below we explain what happened, how the court reasoned, and what businesses should do next.
Background
The plaintiffs said Blackstone Medical Services, which markets home sleep tests, kept sending marketing texts and calls even after they replied “STOP” and registered their numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. They filed a class action under the TCPA and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, seeking up to $1,500 per violation, plus injunctive relief.
Blackstone argued that the Do-Not-Call private right of action in section 227(c)(5) covers only phone calls, not texts. The district court agreed and dismissed the TCPA claims. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit faced one narrow question: does “telephone call” include text messages?
How the court got there
What “telephone call” meant in 1991. Courts interpret undefined words based on their ordinary meaning when a law was passed. In 1991, dictionaries defined a “telephone” as a device that carries sound and a “call” as communicating by phone in that sense. Text messaging did not exist yet (the first text was not sent until December 1992), so a text could not have been considered a “call” when Congress wrote the TCPA. The court recognized that laws can stretch to cover new technology but said that alone is not enough to expand a word’s meaning beyond what it meant when written.
Congress used different words for calls and messages. The TCPA defines “telephone solicitation,” the term used in the neighboring Do-Not-Call provisions, to include a call or a message. But section 227(c)(5) uses only the narrower word “call.” The court read that difference as intentional: Congress meant the private right of action to cover calls only, not the broader category of solicitations that can include texts. The TCPA's separate treatment of fax messages reinforced this reading, since Congress already understood text-based transmissions as “messages,” not “calls,” back in 1991.
Other cases and FCC guidance did not change the outcome. The plaintiffs pointed to a 2016 Supreme Court case suggesting a text “qualifies as a call,” but the Supreme Court later clarified that statement was just an unopposed assumption, not a real ruling on the issue. Other cases treating texts as “calls” all involved a different, more broadly worded TCPA provision. The court also declined to defer to a 2024 FCC order extending Do-Not-Call protections to texts, since that order interpreted different statutory language and courts now decide these questions independently. Finally, the court noted that Congress has updated other parts of the TCPA to cover texts but never updated this specific provision, and it rejected the argument that the law’s general purpose should override its plain words. As the court explained, unwanted telemarketing calls raise safety concerns by tying up phone lines needed for emergencies, a concern that spam texts (which can simply be ignored) do not raise in the same way.
The panel closed with a pointed summary of its holding: “Repeated, unwanted text messages are undoubtedly a nuisance. But they do not fall within the private right of action created by section 227(c)(5). Instead, spam messages may be curbed through agency action pursuant to other provisions of section 227, which we leave undisturbed.”
Why this matters
This is the first time a federal appeals court has decided whether text messages count as “telephone calls” for Do-Not-Call lawsuits. Other courts are likely to find it persuasive, and it could deepen a split that eventually reaches the Supreme Court.
The ruling is narrower than it may sound, for three reasons. It binds only courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, so other courts remain free to disagree. It also says nothing about section 227(b), the TCPA’s broader consent rules for autodialed and prerecorded calls and texts, which remain the main source of TCPA risk for SMS marketing nationwide. And it leaves the FCC's power to pursue unwanted texts under other parts of the law fully intact.
State “mini-TCPA” laws, like the Florida statute at issue here and similar laws in other states, remain a separate and active source of litigation risk regardless of this ruling.
Practical considerations
This decision is not a reason to relax your compliance practices. We recommend the following:
Keep honoring opt-outs and Do-Not-Call requests. Continue processing “STOP” requests and Do-Not-Call registrations for text campaigns exactly as before. This remains your best defense under every legal theory, and this ruling does not change that.
Don't mistake this for a green light on consent. This decision only addresses Do-Not-Call lawsuits. The TCPA's consent rules for autodialed calls and texts, and similar state laws, remain fully in force and still drive most TCPA text-message litigation.
Watch for other risks and a possible Supreme Court fight. Even where Do-Not-Call exposure is reduced in the Seventh Circuit, aggressive texting can still trigger other claims (such as state mini-TCPA, nuisance, or privacy suits) and reputational harm, especially outside Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Because other courts may disagree with this ruling, don’t assume nationwide protection. We will continue tracking how other courts and the FCC respond.
Steidinger is an important development, but not the final word. It does not remove the need for careful consent practices, opt-out handling, and Do-Not-Call compliance across your text and voice marketing. Nixon Peabody’s Corporate group helps companies navigate evolving TCPA, SMS marketing, and consumer outreach requirements while aligning compliance with business goals. We can assess your current programs, update policies, and help reduce risk across federal and state regimes.