Federal Appeals Court Holds Texts Are Not "Telephone Calls" Under Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA

In Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398, 2026 WL 2028517 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a text message is not a "telephone call" within the meaning of Section 227(c)(5) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). As a result, consumers within the Seventh Circuit are now precluded from bringing a "do not call" claim under this provision based on receipt of unwanted marketing texts, even if they are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry or have requested the sender to stop.

This is the first federal circuit decision to squarely decide this issue following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025), which limited judicial deference to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) interpretations of the TCPA. The decision is a significant win for companies that use text messaging for marketing and customer communications.

The Court's Reasoning

The court's opinion rested on several grounds:

• Plain Meaning at Enactment. Under the ordinary public meaning of "telephone call" in 1991, when the TCPA was enacted, the term referred to voice-based sound communications. Text messages, which transmit written characters rather than sound, do not fall within that meaning.
• Statutory Context. TCPA Sections 227(c)(1) through (c)(4) use the broader term "telephone solicitation," which is separately defined to include a "telephone call or message." Section 227(c)(5), by contrast, uses only the narrower term "telephone call." The court applied the meaningful-variation canon, concluding that Congress' deliberate use of a narrower term in Section (c)(5) means it does not encompass text messages.
• No Deference to the FCC. The FCC has interpreted "call" under Section 227(c) to include texts, extending National Do Not Call Registry protections to text messages in 2024. The court declined to follow that interpretation, citing McLaughlin, which held that courts must interpret the TCPA under ordinary statutory-interpretation principles and owe only "appropriate respect," rather than Chevron-style deference, to FCC readings.
• Distinguished Prior Precedent. The court distinguished Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016) and other Seventh Circuit cases – such as Warciak v. Subway Restaurants, Incorporated, 949 F.3d 354 (7th Cir. 2020), and Douglas v. Western Union Company, 955 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2020) – as involving Section 227(b), a different provision with different statutory language than Section 227(c)(5). The court also noted that Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021), clarified that Campbell-Ewald's treatment of texts as "calls" was an unchallenged assumption, not a holding.

What This Means for Clients

This decision is a favorable development for companies that engage in text message marketing or send text communications to consumers. Specifically:

• Within the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin), plaintiffs can no longer pursue private TCPA claims under Section 227(c)(5) based solely on receipt of unwanted marketing texts, including when the consumer is on the National Do Not Call Registry or has texted "STOP."
• The ruling eliminates a commonly asserted class action theory and may reduce litigation exposure for text-based marketing programs.
• The reasoning, grounded in textualism, statutory structure and McLaughlin's limits on FCC deference, provides a strong framework that defendants can cite in other circuits.

Important Caveats

Although this is a positive development for companies, they should keep the following in mind:

• Section 227(b) Claims Remain Unaffected. The TCPA's separate private right of action under Section 227(b)(3), which applies to calls made using an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded/artificial voice, still applies and is not affected by the decision. Texts sent via autodialer technology may still give rise to liability.
• Limited Geographic Scope. This is a Seventh Circuit decision, binding only in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Other circuits have not yet addressed this question post-McLaughlin, and a circuit split or eventual Supreme Court review remains possible.
• State Law Claims Survive. Many states have their own telephone solicitation or consumer protection statutes (e.g., the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, as asserted in this case) that may independently provide remedies for unwanted text messages regardless of the TCPA ruling.
• FCC Enforcement Authority. The court's ruling addresses only the private right of action under Section 227(c)(5). The FCC may still pursue enforcement actions related to unwanted texts under other provisions of Section 227(c).

Practical Next Steps

• Evaluate Pending Litigation: If you face class action claims under Section 227(c)(5) based on text messages in the Seventh Circuit, consider raising this decision in support of dismissal or filing a notice of supplemental authority.
• Continue Compliance with Section 227(b): Ensure that text messaging programs comply with autodialer and consent requirements, as Section 227(b) liability for texts remains intact.
• Monitor for Circuit Developments: Track whether other circuits adopt or reject this reasoning and plan for potential Supreme Court review if a split develops.
• Review State Law Exposure: Assess whether applicable state statutes independently cover unwanted texts and ensure compliance with those regimes.

For more information or questions on these developments, please contact the authors.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.