Quiet-Hours TCPA Claims: Defenses for Businesses That Text
The FCC’s rule bars any telephone solicitation to a residential subscriber “before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party’s location).” Quiet-hours class actions over marketing texts have multiplied, but the rule covers only solicitations, and a subscriber who signed up for the texts gave permission that takes them outside that definition. Courts also disagree about whether texts and cell phones are covered. Defendants often have more than one defense.
What does the quiet-hours rule cover?
Sales messages, measured by the recipient’s clock. The rule is 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1), and it reaches telephone solicitations, meaning calls or messages meant to encourage a purchase or investment, so appointment reminders and shipping notices that go out after 9 p.m. aren’t covered.
Private claims run through the Do Not Call lawsuit provision, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), so they need more than one violating call from the same company within 12 months. Judge Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation in Delaware, laid out the elements in King v. Bon Charge: “Specifically, King must plead that she (1) got multiple calls (or texts) within twelve months, (2) by or on behalf of the same entity, (3) on a residential phone (4) before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time.” Damages are up to $500 per violation, and a court may increase that to up to $1,500 if it finds the violation willful or knowing.
Subscriber consent is the strongest defense
A message sent with the recipient’s prior express invitation or permission isn’t a telephone solicitation under the rule’s definition. In King, the plaintiff had texted a keyword to join a wellness company’s marketing list to get a discount code. The court held that her sign-up was permission: “That counts as prior express consent to get messages advertising Bon Charge’s products,” per the opinion. The quiet-hours claim was dismissed.
The court also explained that this permission doesn’t have to be a signed writing for quiet-hours purposes, unlike consent for the Do Not Call Registry rule. That distinction mattered: the plaintiff’s Registry claim survived. In my view, the keyword-subscription record is the most important document in a quiet-hours case. A business that can produce the opt-in message, its time stamp, and the confirmation text it sent back is in a strong position.
Are texts and cell phones covered?
Courts are split, which gives defendants arguments the plaintiffs’ bar would rather not litigate. The Seventh Circuit held in July 2026, in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, that texts aren’t telephone calls under § 227(c)(5), the provision quiet-hours claims depend on. King went the other way. A federal court in Virginia added a second argument in October 2026, holding in Lowrey v. Twilio that “Section 227(c) does not apply to cellphones, only residential lines.”
None of these rulings binds California courts, and the Ninth Circuit hasn’t decided either question. Both arguments are available here, and a motion to dismiss a text-only quiet-hours claim should raise them.
The FCC petition on quiet hours
Retailers have asked the FCC to close the door on these claims. In a March 2025 public notice, the FCC sought comment on a petition “regarding whether consumers who provide prior express written consent to receive text messages can claim damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for telemarketing text messages received outside the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,” according to DA 25-216. The petitioners also asked that senders be allowed to rely on a number’s area code to determine the recipient’s time zone. As of October 10, 2026, I haven’t found an FCC ruling on the petition.
State calling hours are often stricter
| Where | Quiet hours | What it covers | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal | Before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. | Telephone solicitations, measured at the recipient’s location | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1) |
| Oklahoma | Before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m. | Commercial telephone solicitation calls | 15 O.S. § 775C.4 |
| Maryland | Between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. | Telephone solicitations | Md. Com. Law § 14-4502(c)(1) |
| Florida | Before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m. | Commercial telephone sellers under the Florida Telemarketing Act | Fla. Stat. § 501.616(6)(a) |
| California | Between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m. | Calls placed with automatic dialing-announcing devices | Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 2872(c) |
Oklahoma bars “A commercial telephone solicitation phone call before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m. local time in the called person’s time zone,” under 15 O.S. § 775C.4. Maryland bars solicitations “To a called party during the hours between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. in the called party’s time zone,” under § 14-4502. Florida’s rule sits in its Telemarketing Act. National senders should set send windows to the strictest state their lists reach.
California’s own rule is narrow. It provides that “A person shall not operate an automatic dialing-announcing device in this state to place a call that is received by a telephone in this state during the hours between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m. California time,” under Public Utilities Code § 2872. It targets recorded-message dialers, not marketing texts.
Records that answer a quiet-hours claim
- Put a litigation hold on send logs showing each message’s time stamp, the time zone logic the platform used, and the delivery report.
- Pull the opt-in record for the number (keyword, web form, or checkout consent) and any later STOP or opt-out history, with dates.
- Pull Registry scrub records for the campaign, because a quiet-hours complaint usually pleads a Registry claim alongside it.
- Collect the texting platform contract, message templates, and any send-window settings or change logs.
- Talk to a lawyer before responding to a demand letter or changing send-window settings for the campaign named in the complaint.
Quiet-hours questions from businesses
Does the rule apply to texts sent to our own subscribers?
Under King’s reasoning, generally not. A subscriber who signed up gave permission, and messages sent with permission aren’t telephone solicitations. That defense ends once the subscriber opts out, so marketing that continues past the ten-business-day window after a STOP request is a separate problem that doesn’t depend on the time of day.
Whose time zone controls?
The recipient’s. The rule measures the hours by local time at the called party’s location. Many platforms infer location from area code, which can be wrong for people who moved and kept their numbers. Until the FCC acts on the pending petition, the safer practice for a national list is a send window that falls inside lawful hours in every time zone the list reaches, including the stricter state windows.
Do quiet-hours rules cover collection calls?
Not the telemarketing rule, since collection calls aren’t sales calls. Collectors have their own timing rule under the CFPB’s Regulation F: a time “before 8:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m. local time at the consumer’s location is inconvenient,” per 12 C.F.R. § 1006.6. That rule applies to texts and emails as well as calls.
How many late messages does a plaintiff need?
More than one violating message from the same company within 12 months, because the claim runs through § 227(c)(5). Each violating message then carries up to $500. Class complaints usually allege many late messages across a large list, which is why the consent and time-zone records matter more than any single message.
Defending quiet-hours claims
If your company has been sued over texts or calls sent outside federal calling hours, subscriber consent and location records are often the strongest defenses. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving marketing texts sent outside calling hours. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The federal rule is 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1), as published in the eCFR through October 7, 2026, enforced through 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). The FCC’s public notice is DA 25-216 (Mar. 11, 2025). The court decisions are King v. Bon Charge, No. 1:25-cv-00105 (D. Del., as amended Apr. 30, 2026); Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026); and Lowrey v. Twilio, Inc., No. 6:25-cv-00116 (W.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2026). State laws cited are 15 O.S. § 775C.4, Md. Com. Law § 14-4502, Fla. Stat. § 501.616, and Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 2872. Regulation F is at 12 C.F.R. § 1006.6.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of October 10, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Courts and the FCC change the rules in this area often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.