Wilson v. MEDVIDI: Texts Count as Calls, but You Still Have to Say Who Sent Them

The Texts

The plaintiff alleged his number was on the National Do Not Call Registry, he never consented, and he got multiple telemarketing texts in 2022 and 2024, including after replying "STOP" in 2022. He brought class claims for registry violations and for ignoring internal do not call requests.

The "No Texts Allowed" Argument

The company's first argument has become a favorite after the Supreme Court's recent cases: Section 227(c) says "telephone call," the words "text message" never appear, so texts are out. It also argued that because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defined "call" to include texts in the autodialer section of its rules, the agency must have meant to exclude texts from the Do Not Call section.

Judge Freeman was not impressed. A few highlights:

• Timing. The statute was passed in 1991, and the first text message was sent in 1992. Of course Congress did not say "text."
• Plain meaning. A "call" is defined by what it conveys, not its form, and the Ninth Circuit held in Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009), that it covers written communications.
• Statutory text. The definition of telephone solicitation includes a "telephone call or message" sent to sell something. Purpose, not format, is what matters.
• Precedent. The Supreme Court, in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016), said it was "undisputed" that a text qualifies as a call.

The court also addressed the new administrative law landscape. Satterfield relied partly on Chevron deference, but Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), said precedents relying on Chevron remain intact. As for the FCC rule argument, the court called it "tortured" reasoning, and noted that the same word should carry the same meaning throughout a statute. Even assuming the agency meant to draw that distinction, McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025), holds that courts independently interpret the TCPA, so the agency could not rewrite the text anyway.

The Part the Plaintiff Lost

The complaint said the company sent the texts, but that was about it. There were no facts about any investigation tying the company to the numbers that sent the messages, and the "Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents" catchall did not identify any third party or agency relationship. Unadorned labels do not plead direct or vicarious liability.

Because texts are covered, amendment would not be futile. The plaintiff got 28 days to add facts about how the messages were sent and who sent them.

Takeaways

Defense lawyers hoping that the Supreme Court's recent decisions would knock texts out of the Do Not Call rules got a firm no here, though other courts have split on this question. Plaintiffs got a reminder that attribution matters as much as the message: say how you know who sent it, whether that is a link, a callback, a website, or a company name in the text.

Read the Northern District of California order in Wilson v. MEDVIDI.