Topic 02

Calls and Texts

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) uses the word "calls," but most consumer complaints today involve text messages. Whether a text counts as a call now depends on which part of the law applies.

Where things stand

  1. Robocall rules (§ 227(b)). Federal appeals courts treat texts as calls. Autodialed marketing texts are therefore subject to the same prior express written consent requirements as autodialed marketing calls.
  2. Do-not-call lawsuits (§ 227(c)(5)). In July 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that texts are not "telephone calls" for private do-not-call suits. No other circuit had ruled on that question as of October 14, 2026.
  3. Agency rules. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e) continues to apply do-not-call protections to marketing texts. The FCC can enforce it regardless of private-suit rulings.
  4. States. The statutes of Florida, Oklahoma, Maryland, Texas, Virginia, Oregon, and Pennsylvania expressly cover texts.

Other text issues come up often. A text with an embedded video was not a call made "using" a prerecorded voice, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in January 2026. Federal quiet hours (8 a.m. to 9 p.m., local time) apply to marketing texts, and a petition asking the FCC to limit quiet-hours lawsuits remained pending as of October 14, 2026.

What this means for you

Treat texts like calls for consent, do-not-call scrubbing, and quiet hours. The articles in this section follow developments in the courts and at the FCC on texting.

The maintained guide

Calls, Texts, and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was enacted in 1991, before text messaging existed.

Guides 3

Analysis and news 16

Case analysis · Calls & text messages

Moskowitz v. American Savings Bank: Texting a Short Code Consents to the Reply, and Rule 41(d) Costs Exclude Attorney's Fees

In Moskowitz v. American Savings Bank, F.S.B., 37 F.4th 538 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a bank sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) over automated replies to text messages, and then reversed an award of attorney's fees that the district court had treated as "costs" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d).

Regulatory update · Autodialers & artificial voice

FCC Imposes $120 Million Penalty on Adrian Abramovich for 96 Million Spoofed Robocalls

On May 10, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Forfeiture Order imposing a $120,000,000 penalty on Adrian Abramovich, personally and doing business as Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc. and Marketing Leaders, Inc. The FCC found that he made 96,758,223 illegal spoofed robocalls during a three-month period in 2016.

Case law 3

Eleventh Circuit (en banc) · 2023

Drazen v. Pinto (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc)

The full Eleventh Circuit ruled that a person who receives an unwanted, illegal telemarketing text message has suffered a concrete injury and so has standing to sue under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Supreme Court · 2020

Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)

The Supreme Court invalidated a 2015 exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) that allowed robocalls to cell phones made to collect debts owed to or guaranteed by the federal government.

Supreme Court · 2016

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (2016)

A defendant cannot moot a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) suit, including a proposed class action, just by offering a named plaintiff full relief.

Primary sources

  1. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (Cornell Legal Information Institute)
  2. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (eCFR, current)
  3. Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, LLC, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026)
  4. Howard v. Republican National Committee, No. 23-3826 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026)
  5. FCC Public Notice DA 25-216