Texas SB 140: What Businesses Texting Texas Numbers Need to Know

Starting today, September 1, 2025, a marketing text to a buyer in Texas can trigger the same state registration rules as a sales call. Senate Bill 140 rewrote the definition of “telephone solicitation” in Texas’s registration law to reach “a transmission of a text or graphic message or of an image,” and it opened the Deceptive Trade Practices Act to violations of two other Texas telemarketing chapters. That’s new exposure for companies texting Texas customers, but I think many senders will fit one of the statute’s exemptions.

What did Senate Bill 140 change?

The governor signed SB 140 on June 20. It takes effect today, according to the Texas Legislature’s bill history, and it amends three Business and Commerce Code chapters.

Chapter 302, registration. As amended, § 302.001(7) defines a telephone solicitation as “a call or other transmission, including a transmission of a text or graphic message or of an image, initiated by a seller or salesperson to induce a person to purchase, rent, claim, or receive an item.” The old definition reached only a telephone call, and the bill now borrows the no-call chapter’s broader definition of that term too.

Chapters 304 and 305, no-call and solicitation calls. The bill added the same sentence to both chapters: “A violation of this chapter is a false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice under Subchapter E, Chapter 17,” in new § 304.2581 and § 305.054. That’s the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Chapter 302 already had that link in § 302.303; what SB 140 changed in chapter 302 is the definition, plus the repeat-claimant rule below.

Repeat claimants. All three chapters now provide that a claimant’s repeat recoveries “may not limit recovery in a future legal proceeding in any manner,” in § 302.003(b) and its counterparts. I don’t think that changes how a defense gets built, but it limits one argument about a serial claimant’s recovery.

No reach back. Section 6 of the enrolled bill provides: “The changes in law made by this Act apply only to conduct that occurs on or after the effective date of this Act.” Texts sent before today are judged under the old law.

Does a company outside Texas have to register before texting buyers in Texas?

Yes, if the text is a telephone solicitation made by or for a seller to a purchaser located in Texas and no exemption applies. Section 302.101(a) states: “A seller may not make a telephone solicitation from a location in this state or to a purchaser located in this state unless the seller holds a registration certificate for the business location from which the telephone solicitation is made.” The words “or to a purchaser located in this state” reach senders based outside Texas. A Texas area code doesn’t by itself show where the recipient is.

The seller files a registration statement with the Secretary of State, using Form 3401, and pays a $200 filing fee under § 302.106. It posts $10,000 in security under § 302.107, in one of the forms that section allows. The statement must be accompanied by the seller’s sales scripts under § 302.153, and it’s public under § 302.102(b). A seller whose principal business location isn’t in Texas must also designate “the seller’s main location in this state” under § 302.151(9), which is an awkward question for a company that has no Texas office. I think the disclosures are a bigger burden than the fee: § 302.151 asks for each officer’s home address, date of birth, and driver’s license number, and for the seller’s bank account numbers.

Under § 302.203, “A seller may not make or authorize the making of a reference to the seller’s compliance with this chapter to a purchaser.” Don’t put a line saying you’re registered with the State of Texas in your texts.

A violation carries a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation under § 302.302, and § 302.303 opens DTPA remedies to private plaintiffs, subject to the DTPA’s own requirements.

Which exemptions are most likely to cover a business that texts?

In a civil case, the company claiming an exemption has to prove it. Section 302.051(a) says “a person who claims an exemption from the application of this chapter has the burden of proving the exemption.” Here are the ones I’d check first for a company that texts consumers.

Current and former customers. Section 302.058(2) exempts a person who is soliciting business from a former or current customer and “has operated under the same business name for at least two years.” It may not cover leads who never bought anything, and it won’t help a brand renamed last year.

Stores, public companies, and regulated businesses. Section 302.059(2) covers a company that has run, for at least two years, a retail store where consumer goods are continuously displayed and offered for sale, under the name it uses in its telemarketing, if most of its business involves buyers getting goods or services at the store. Section 302.053 exempts publicly traded corporations registered with the SEC or the State Securities Board and their subsidiaries, supervised financial institutions, and insurance licensees when the solicited transaction is governed by the Insurance Code.

Nonprofits and narrower categories. Section 302.055 exempts educational institutions and 501(c)(3) organizations. Our June post covered where the federal nonprofit exemptions stop. Other exemptions cover food sales, sales to businesses for resale, and isolated transactions.

Chapter 302 doesn’t list a recipient’s consent to receive messages as an exemption. No court has applied the new definition yet. I’d still keep clean opt-in records, because they matter for the federal claims, including the federal Do Not Call rules, and may help show an established business relationship under § 304.004. My view is that an exemption a company can’t document on the day of the send is close to worthless in litigation, because § 302.051 puts the burden of proof on the company.

How does the Texas no-call list apply to texts?

Texas’s no-call chapter covered texts to cell phones well before SB 140. Chapter 304 defines a “telephone call” to include “a call or other transmission, including a transmission of a text or graphic message or of an image, to a mobile telephone number” in § 304.002(10)(C). SB 140 left the no-call rules themselves alone and changed the remedies.

The Texas no-call list combines Texans who signed up with the state and the Texas portion of the National Do Not Call Registry, under § 304.051(b). It’s published quarterly, on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. The core rule, in § 304.052, is that “A telemarketer may not make a telemarketing call to a telephone number published on the Texas no-call list more than 60 days after the date the telephone number appears on the current list.” The Public Utility Commission’s rule, whose own definition of a telephone call doesn’t mention texts, adds a purchase requirement: “A telemarketer shall purchase each published version of the no-call list,” with narrow exceptions, under 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 26.37(d)(2).

Two limits help defendants. The no-call rule reaches only an “unsolicited telephone call” made to solicit a sale of, or credit for, a consumer good or service, or to gather information for one, under § 304.002(9). And § 304.004 excludes calls tied to an established business relationship, debt collection calls, and calls to a business that hasn’t asked the telemarketer to stop.

Before SB 140, a consumer’s private no-call claim ran through § 304.257, which lets a consumer on the list sue over a second or later violation only after notifying the telemarketer and filing a prompt verified complaint with a state agency, and only if the agency doesn’t bring its own action within the period the statute allows. A court that finds a willful or knowing violation of § 304.052 may award up to $500 per violation. SB 140 didn’t repeal those conditions. I’d expect defendants to argue that a no-call claim repackaged under the DTPA still has to clear them, since the Legislature left § 304.257 in place.

What does the DTPA add to a text-message claim?

The DTPA changes the damages model and adds fee-shifting. Plaintiffs will argue that SB 140 triggers § 17.50(h), which provides that a claimant granted a DTPA claim by another law “may recover any actual damages incurred by the claimant, without regard to whether the conduct of the defendant was committed intentionally,” and up to three times actual damages under the DTPA’s rules for knowing conduct. Under § 17.50(d), “Each consumer who prevails shall be awarded court costs and reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees.”

The DTPA has no fixed per-text award, and a few unwanted texts rarely produce much actual damage. I’d say the fee provision is what gives these claims settlement value.

Defendants have DTPA tools too. In most cases, § 17.505 requires written pre-suit notice of the complaint and damages, and a defendant that didn’t get it can seek abatement if it raises the issue promptly. The DTPA’s definition of “consumer” in § 17.45(4) covers someone “who seeks or acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services,” and whether a person who only received a text meets it is a fair question to raise. And under § 17.50(c), a court that finds a suit “groundless in fact or law or brought in bad faith,” or brought to harass, must award the defendant its fees.

Texas already had a federal-overlap claim. Under § 305.053, a person who receives a communication that violates the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act or its rules can sue, in Texas, the person who originated it for the greater of $500 per violation or actual damages, and the court may raise that to up to $1,500 per violation, or three times actual damages, if it finds the violation was knowing or intentional. Florida and Oklahoma have their own statutes aimed at marketing calls and texts, as does Maryland, and this post doesn’t cover them.

A checklist for senders outside Texas

Our July post covers the clauses that matter in TCPA vendor contracts and indemnity.

What to pull together if a Texas claim arrives

1. Put a litigation hold on message logs, platform data, and opt-in records for the Texas numbers involved.
2. Pull opt-out and internal do-not-call records, with request dates.
3. Gather Texas list purchases and Registry scrubs, with version dates.
4. Collect the registration file or exemption proof, vendor contracts, and message templates.
5. Get a lawyer involved before you answer a demand letter, contact the claimant, or offer money.

For claims involving marketing texts to Texas numbers, the firm’s California TCPA defense page sets out what the defense looks at first.

If a Texas text claim lands on your desk

If your company is facing a Texas claim over unregistered marketing texts or texts to numbers on the Texas no-call list, the exemption records and list purchases, along with the date of each message, are the first documents to pull. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving marketing texts to Texas numbers. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

Texas Legislature, S.B. 140, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025), enrolled text and bill history.

Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 302, ch. 304, ch. 305, and ch. 17, subch. E.

Public Utility Commission of Texas, 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 26.37.

Texas Secretary of State, Form 3401, Telephone Solicitation Registration Statement.

47 U.S.C. § 227.

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of September 1, 2025. 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.