Seventh Circuit Holds Text Messages Are Not "Telephone Calls" Under TCPA Section 227(c)(5)

What happened

The plaintiffs received marketing texts and calls from Blackstone Medical Services urging them to buy home sleep tests. They alleged the messages continued even after they replied "STOP" or registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. They sued under the TCPA and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed the TCPA claims, holding that § 227(c)(5) does not reach texts, and declined to keep the state-law claim. The plaintiffs appealed.

The opinion is attached: Seventh Circuit opinion in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services.

The law

Section 227(c)(5) lets a person sue after receiving "more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity" in violation of the do-not-call regulations. The question was whether "telephone call" includes a text.

What the court held

Judge Kirsch wrote for a unanimous panel. The court's reasoning:

1. Ordinary meaning in 1991. The court read the statute by its ordinary public meaning when enacted. Contemporary dictionaries defined a telephone as an instrument "for reproducing sounds at a distance." The first text message was not sent until December 1992.
2. Texts are not a new application of "call." Statutes can reach new technology, but texts do not reproduce sound. They are not a new form of telephone call.
3. Statutory context. Other parts of § 227 distinguish calls from messages. Section 227(a)(4) refers to a "telephone call or message." Congress knew how to cover both.
4. Policy cannot override text. The remedial purpose of the TCPA does not expand the words Congress used. The court noted that Congress was concerned about calls tying up lines needed for emergencies, a risk spam texts do not pose.

The court added that spam texts "may be curbed through agency action pursuant to other provisions of § 227, which we leave undisturbed." The plaintiffs did not argue that the calls alone could support the claim, so the court treated that argument as waived.

Why it matters

The ruling binds federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. District courts elsewhere, including the Western District of Virginia in October 2026, have followed it. Other courts have reached the opposite result. The issue may reach the Supreme Court.

What this means for you

1. This is narrow. It addresses one private right of action. It does not decide § 227(b) claims, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enforcement or state law.
2. State laws remain. Florida and other states have their own texting statutes.
3. Venue matters. Your exposure depends on where you are sued.
4. Keep complying. Honor opt-outs and scrub against the Registry. That is still the rule for calls, and the safest practice for texts.