Bosley v. A Bradley Hospitality: "No Stop" Means Stop, Says Miami Federal Court

The Texts

The plaintiff alleged her residential cell number had been on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2009. Beginning in December 2024, a Florida restaurant operator texted her promotions and discounts. After several messages, she replied "No stop" on January 2, 2025. The texts allegedly continued until at least March, despite more opt-out replies.

She sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) on two theories: texting a registered number, and failing to keep internal do not call procedures.

Standing

The defense said reading a few short texts over months was not a concrete injury. The court disagreed, citing the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Drazen v. Pinto, 74 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2023), that receiving an unwanted text causes a concrete injury.

"These Weren't Ads"

The defense also argued the seven texts were mere announcements, like a movie and comedy night or a free table for VIPs on February 14, not "advertisements." The court said that was the wrong test. The registry rule covers "telephone solicitations," and the internal list rule covers "telemarketing." Neither requires an advertisement. Texts promoting a restaurant's entertainment, discounts and promotions were plausibly solicitation and telemarketing.

The "No Stop" Defense

Here is the fun part. The texts told the plaintiff to reply "STOP to end." She replied "No stop" instead. The defense argued that meant "keep going" and amounted to express consent.

The court rejected that for two reasons.

First, it does not matter for the registry claim. The first "No stop" came after several texts. Those earlier texts were sent without consent, and a registry claim only needs more than one unwanted message in 12 months. So even a "consent" reading would not save the claim.

Second, "No stop" means stop. Under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) revocation rule, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10), replying "stop" is a per se reasonable way to revoke consent. If a reply uses other words, the sender must treat it as a revocation if a reasonable person would understand it that way. The court found a reasonable person would read "No stop" as stop, especially since the number was on the registry and the plaintiff sent the message more than once. The defense offered no authority to the contrary.

That also helped the internal list claim. Texts continuing after stop requests support an inference that the sender's do not call procedures were deficient. The defense did not dispute allegations that it lacked a master opt-out list and a written policy.

What This Means

• Do not get cute with opt-outs. If the word "stop" appears in a reply, treat it as a stop. Courts read these replies the way a normal person would.
• "Informational" is not a magic word. Event and promotion texts from a business are likely telemarketing.
• Fix the plumbing. A master opt-out list and written policy are basic requirements, and missing them is easy to plead.
• The early texts count. Later consent arguments do not erase earlier unsolicited messages to registered numbers.

Read the Southern District of Florida order on the motion to dismiss.