Calls, Texts, and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

The answer now turns on which part of the statute applies, which agency is enforcing, and which court you are in.

Under the robocall provision, texts are calls

Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) makes it unlawful to use an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice to call a cell phone without prior express consent. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has long treated texts as calls for this provision. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (2016), the Supreme Court observed that it was "undisputed" that a text message to a cell phone qualifies as a call under that provision. In Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021), the Court clarified that it had only assumed the point because neither party contested it.

Federal appeals courts, including the First, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, have treated texts as calls under § 227(b). In practice, no one should plan a texting program on the theory that § 227(b) does not apply.

The bottom line: if you send autodialed texts, you need the same consent you would need for an autodialed call. For marketing texts, that means prior express written consent under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2).

Under the do-not-call provision, courts now split

Section 227(c)(5) lets a person sue after receiving "more than one telephone call within any 12-month period" from the same entity in violation of the do-not-call rules.

In Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that text messages are not "telephone calls" under § 227(c)(5). The court read the words as ordinary people understood them in 1991. It distinguished the § 227(b) cases. It also relied on McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. (2025), which held that district courts are not bound by the FCC's interpretation of the statute in enforcement cases.

Here is why it matters:

1. In Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, private do-not-call claims over texts face a binding appellate ruling against them.
2. Elsewhere, district courts have reached different results. No other federal court of appeals had ruled on the § 227(c)(5) question as of October 14, 2026.
3. The FCC's own rule still says the do-not-call rules apply to "telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls or text messages to wireless telephone numbers." See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e). The FCC remains free to enforce that rule, whatever courts decide in private suits.
4. State laws in Florida, Oklahoma, Maryland, Texas, Virginia, Oregon, and Pennsylvania expressly cover texts.

Texts with video or images

In Howard v. Republican National Committee (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a text message with an embedded video containing a recorded voice does not "use" an artificial or prerecorded voice under § 227(b). The court treated the text as a call and accepted that the video contained a prerecorded voice. But it held the statute reaches only calls made or begun using such a voice, and this text was not. A judge dissented.

Opt-outs by text

The FCC's revocation rules took effect April 11, 2025. Under § 64.1200(a)(10) through (a)(12):

• A reply of "stop," "quit," "end," "revoke," "opt out," "cancel," or "unsubscribe" is a per se valid revocation.
• Other replies are presumed to be revocations unless the sender shows otherwise.
• Senders must honor revocations within 10 business days.
• Senders may send one confirmation text, which may not market anything. It is presumed fine if sent within five minutes.

The FCC adopted FCC 26-67 on September 30, 2026. Once effective, it will let senders designate an exclusive opt-out method, such as a reply keyword, if clearly and conspicuously disclosed. It will also make a marketing opt-out apply to all of that sender's marketing. The order takes effect 30 days after Federal Register publication, which had not happened as of October 14, 2026.

Quiet hours for texts

The FCC's rule prohibits telephone solicitations before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. in the recipient's local time. See § 64.1200(c)(1). Through § 64.1200(e), it applies to marketing texts to wireless numbers.

In March 2025, a group of petitioners led by the Ecommerce Innovation Alliance (EIA) asked the FCC to declare that consumers who gave prior express written consent cannot sue over texts received outside those hours, or to waive the rule for wireless numbers. The FCC sought comment in DA 25-216. We found no FCC ruling on the petition as of October 14, 2026. Until there is one, follow the hours.

State laws often set tighter windows. Florida, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Oregon generally stop solicitations at 8 p.m. Pennsylvania's 2026 amendments set 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. and bar Sunday solicitations.

Blocking of texts from invalid numbers

Under § 64.1200(p), mobile wireless providers must block texts that purport to come from numbers on a reasonable do-not-originate list, such as invalid or unallocated numbers. Senders are well advised to use valid, assigned numbers they control.

Practical checklist for texting programs

1. Obtain written consent for marketing texts and keep proof.
2. Scrub against the National Do Not Call Registry and your internal list, even in the Seventh Circuit, because the FCC and the states still apply those rules to texts.
3. Process opt-out keywords automatically, and route other "please stop" replies to a review queue.
4. Send texts only during allowed hours in the recipient's time zone, using the strictest state rule that applies.
5. Watch Florida's rule: before suing over texts, a recipient must reply "STOP" and give the sender 15 days to stop.