Marketing texts are among the most common reasons businesses get sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, with exposure of up to $500 per text and up to $1,500 per text if a court finds the conduct willful or knowing. The ground shifted in 2026. A federal appeals court in Chicago held that texts can’t support a Do Not Call claim, but two California federal courts declined to follow it in October. A company facing a text-message claim usually has more defenses than the demand letter suggests.
Which text-message claims do businesses face?
Three theories cover most of them, and the first two are where the volume is.
Texts to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry. The FCC’s rules bar telephone solicitations to residential subscribers on the National Do Not Call Registry, and they expressly reach “telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls or text messages to wireless telephone numbers” under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. The private claim belongs only to someone who received “more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity,” under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). One text isn’t a Do Not Call case.
Texts after a stop request. Every company that telemarkets must keep an internal do-not-call list and honor requests, and “This period may not exceed ten (10) business days from the receipt of such request,” per § 64.1200(d)(3). A stop request also ends any established-business-relationship exception for that customer.
Autodialed texts. This claim needs equipment with “the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be called,” as the Supreme Court held in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid. Platforms that send to a customer list usually don’t qualify, which is why this theory has faded since 2021.
The Steidinger defense for text-only claims
In July 2026, the Seventh Circuit held in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that texts aren’t “telephone calls” under § 227(c)(5). The court wrote: “Repeated, unwanted text messages are undoubtedly a nuisance. But they do not fall within the private right of action created by § 227(c)(5).” In the Seventh Circuit, that knocks out every text-only claim under the Do Not Call rules, including the stop-request and quiet-hours rules.
The FCC’s rule says otherwise, but after McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. a court in a private case “should interpret the TCPA under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation,” instead of following the agency’s reading.
California sits in the Ninth Circuit, which hasn’t ruled on the question. Its January 2026 decision in Howard v. Republican National Committee treated a text as a “call” for the autodialer and recorded-voice provisions, which are a different part of the statute. In October 2026, two California federal courts relied on Howard and an earlier Ninth Circuit decision to reject the Steidinger argument at the pleading stage, in Lewis v. Tenth Hall and Combs v. UG Franchise Operations. I’d still raise Steidinger in a text-only Do Not Call case filed in California, because nothing binding forecloses it and the Ninth Circuit hasn’t ruled, but mainly to preserve it for appeal and to shape settlement talks.
Don’t lean on narrow readings of what counts as a sales message, though. The Ninth Circuit revived a Do Not Call case in Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer after concluding that “one purpose for which Defendants initiated these messages was to encourage the purchase of real estate brokerage services. That is enough to satisfy the statutory definition.” A friendly check-in text that feeds a sales funnel can still be a telephone solicitation. Our post on dual-purpose calls and texts covers how courts decide whether a message is marketing.
Consent is the defense that ends most text cases
Most text claims turn on permission, and the rules are friendlier to businesses than many people assume.
A purchase or transaction within the past 18 months, or an inquiry within the past three, creates an established business relationship that takes texts outside the Registry rule, under the definition in § 64.1200(f)(5). Written permission works too, but the rule sets the bar: “Such permission must be evidenced by a signed, written agreement between the consumer and seller which states that the consumer agrees to be contacted by this seller and includes the telephone number to which the calls may be placed.”
Keyword sign-ups count for more than people expect. In King v. Bon Charge, a Delaware federal court held that a consumer who texted a keyword to subscribe for a coupon had given permission, writing: “That counts as prior express consent to get messages advertising Bon Charge’s products.” The court dismissed the quiet-hours claim on that basis.
Two other developments help businesses that buy leads or use recorded messages. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC’s one-seller-at-a-time consent rule in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC before it took effect. And the Fifth Circuit held in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control that “The statute provides no basis for concluding that telemarketing calls require prior express written consent but not oral consent.” Bradford binds only the Fifth Circuit, but it’s a respectable argument anywhere.
Exposure and defenses at a glance
| Claim theory | Where it comes from | Exposure per text | Defenses that answer it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texts to a Registry number | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) and (e), 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) | Up to $500, or up to $1,500 if willful or knowing | Steidinger, established business relationship, signed written permission, reasonable-procedures defense |
| Texts after a stop request | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3), 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) | Up to $500, or up to $1,500 if willful or knowing | Steidinger, timing within the ten-business-day window, request never received |
| Texts after 9 p.m. or before 8 a.m. | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1), 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) | Up to $500, or up to $1,500 if willful or knowing | Steidinger, prior invitation or permission under King |
| Autodialed texts | 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), (b)(3) | $500, or up to $1,500 if willful or knowing | Duguid’s definition, prior express consent |
California law adds rules, not damages
California bans most text ads to its residents in Business and Professions Code § 17538.41, with an exception for companies that have an existing relationship with the recipient and offer an opt-out. Enforcement runs through public channels. The Legislature’s own summary says “Existing law enforces these prohibitions pursuant to the provisions related to unfair competition and makes a violation of these provisions a misdemeanor,” according to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest for AB 1865.
That bill would have created a private claim for “Five hundred dollars ($500) per text message advertisement, actual damages, or statutory damages, whichever amount is greater,” and barred text ads between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m. even with consent. The Appropriations Committee held it on May 14, 2026, according to its bill history. I expect a version of it to come back, so companies texting California numbers should schedule sends inside that window now.
Florida numbers carry a pre-suit step that helps defendants. Florida’s telephone solicitation statute lets a consumer sue over texts only after replying STOP and waiting 15 days, which gives a company a window to fix the problem. Our post on state mini-TCPA laws covers Florida’s statute and the Oklahoma and Maryland laws modeled on it.
When a text-message demand letter arrives
- Put a litigation hold on the sending platform’s logs for the number, including every message, its time stamp, and the consent record behind it.
- Pull the opt-out history: every reply the number sent, how the system read it, and when the number was suppressed.
- Pull the Registry scrub records and the version dates used for the campaigns that reached the number.
- Gather vendor and lead-source contracts and the exact message templates, since vicarious-liability and consent defenses depend on them.
- Talk to a lawyer before responding to the letter, texting the claimant, or offering a credit to make it go away.
For claims involving marketing texts and Do Not Call compliance, the firm’s California TCPA defense page sets out what the defense looks at first.
Questions businesses ask about text-message claims
Can a single marketing text create TCPA liability?
Rarely, by itself. Every claim under the Do Not Call rules, including stop-request and quiet-hours claims, requires more than one violating message from the same sender within 12 months. A single text can matter only under the autodialer provision, which requires equipment that generates numbers randomly or sequentially. Most texting platforms don’t, so one text is seldom the problem. A pattern is.
Does a customer’s purchase let us text a number on the Registry?
Yes, for a while. A purchase or transaction within the past 18 months creates an established business relationship, and an inquiry creates one for three months. The relationship ends when the customer asks you to stop, even if they keep buying from you. After that, any marketing text is outside the exception.
Are texts sent by our vendor our responsibility?
They can be. The Ninth Circuit applies agency principles, so a seller can be liable for a vendor’s texts when the vendor acts as its agent. Contracts matter. In Jones v. Royal Administration Services, a seller’s contract barring unlawful telemarketing methods helped defeat liability for its vendor’s robocalls. Review those contracts before a claim arrives.
How should our system handle replies other than STOP?
Treat them seriously. Under the current rule, a reply in other words still revokes consent if a reasonable person would read it that way. Once the FCC’s September 2026 order takes effect on November 25, 2026, a company that discloses one exclusive opt-out method in every message, such as replying STOP, can limit what it must honor, though it must still accept all seven standard words.
Facing a spam-text lawsuit?
If your company has been sued or received a demand letter over marketing texts, the consent records and opt-out logs you keep today will shape the defense. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving marketing texts and Do Not Call compliance. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act at 47 U.S.C. § 227. The FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as published in the eCFR through October 23, 2026. California’s text-ad statute is Bus. & Prof. Code § 17538.41, and the 2026 bill is AB 1865 with its bill history. The FCC’s September 2026 order is FCC 26-67, published at 91 Fed. Reg. 67214 (Oct. 26, 2026) and effective Nov. 25, 2026. Florida’s statute is Fla. Stat. § 501.059.
The court decisions are Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021); McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025); Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026); Howard v. Republican National Committee, No. 23-3826 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026); Lewis v. Tenth Hall, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01810-AC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2026); Combs v. UG Franchise Operations, LLC, No. 5:26-cv-01764-KK-DTB (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2026); Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer, LLC, No. 25-4066 (9th Cir. June 4, 2026); Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025); Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc., No. 24-20379 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2026); and King v. Bon Charge, No. 1:25-cv-00105 (D. Del., as amended Apr. 30, 2026).
Updated October 27, 2026, to add two October 2026 California rulings on Steidinger and the November 25, 2026 effective date of FCC 26-67.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of October 27, 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.