Sweepstakes Texts and TCPA Consent: When Does a Contest Entry Count?

A sweepstakes or giveaway entry can be TCPA consent for marketing texts if the entry form works as a signed written agreement: a plain disclosure that the entrant agrees to marketing texts from your company at the number given, and a statement that agreeing isn’t a condition of purchase. Entering to win isn’t consent by itself. When the form was built to that standard and the records survive, a company accused over contest texts has a consent defense worth building the case around.

Which consent rule applies to a text sent after a contest entry?

Two federal rules can apply, and a careful program plans for both.

The first covers autodialed or prerecorded marketing. With narrow exceptions, the FCC’s rules bar those calls to cell phones “other than a call made with the prior express written consent of the called party,” under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2). Asked in 2015 whether texts get the same protection as voice calls, the FCC’s order answered: “We reiterate that they are.” Prior express written consent is the FCC’s term for a signed agreement to receive marketing robocalls or robotexts. The rule reaches only autodialers and artificial or prerecorded voices. An autodialer needs “the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be called,” the Supreme Court held in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid. In my view, a platform that only texts a stored list of entrants is a weak fit for that definition. The Do Not Call rule doesn’t depend on equipment, though.

The second is the Do Not Call rule. The National Do Not Call Registry is the federal list of residential numbers whose owners don’t want telemarketing. The FCC applies its Registry rules to “telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls or text messages to wireless telephone numbers,” to the extent described in a 2003 FCC order, under § 64.1200(e). A marketing text to a registered number is permitted with the person’s permission, which “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,” per § 64.1200(c)(2)(ii).

The Registry exemption doesn’t call for the condition-of-purchase disclosure, but it does call for a signed writing that names the seller and the number. I’d build every entry form to the full written-consent standard even if your platform isn’t an autodialer, because the extra disclosure costs one sentence.

What does an entry form need to count as written consent?

It needs a signature, the right disclosures, the number, and your company’s name, all in a form the entrant actually saw.

First, a trap. As of this writing, the eCFR’s version of § 64.1200(f)(9) shows the 2023 “one-to-one” revision, which has been postponed and vacated. It isn’t the law. The FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau postponed it in DA 25-90, released January 24, 2025. The order said “The previous requirements for prior express written consent in 47 CFR § 64.1200(f)(9) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) will meanwhile remain in effect.” The same day, in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, the Eleventh Circuit struck both the one-seller limit and a companion requirement that calls be “logically and topically associated” with the interaction that prompted consent. The court vacated Part III.D of the 2023 order and remanded to the FCC.

The definition that governs is the earlier one, which the eCFR’s December 2023 version shows. It requires an agreement in writing, signed by the person, that “clearly authorizes the seller to deliver or cause to be delivered” marketing messages by autodialer or prerecorded voice, and that includes the number. The writing must include a “clear and conspicuous disclosure informing the person signing that” they’re authorizing those messages and that they aren’t required to agree to them as a condition of purchase.

The signature can be a click. The rule counts “an electronic or digital form of signature” that’s valid under federal law or state contract law. In its 2012 order the FCC said consent under the federal E-SIGN Act qualifies, “including permission obtained via an email, website form, text message, telephone keypress, or voice recording.” A checked box and a submit button can work.

The disclosure has to be where the entrant looks. The FCC defines “clear and conspicuous” as a notice “apparent to the reasonable consumer, separate and distinguishable from the advertising copy or other disclosures,” in § 64.1200(f)(3). In my view, consent language buried in the official rules or a privacy policy is weak. In a 2022 footnote in Trim v. Mayvenn, Inc. (N.D. Cal.), the court noted that the seller’s consent provision was “contained in a general privacy policy” on a separate page of its website, with no showing that it was clear and conspicuous as a matter of law. The seller hadn’t moved on consent, and the order binds no other court, but I’d expect other judges to read a buried clause the same way.

You’ll have to prove it. Under the 2012 order, “the seller will bear the burden of demonstrating that a clear and conspicuous disclosure was provided and that unambiguous consent was obtained.” A form that changed mid-promotion, with no record of which version an entrant saw, leaves a hole.

Can “no purchase necessary” and a text opt-in sit on the same entry form?

Yes, if both tell the entrant that nothing has to be bought and texts are a separate choice.

The written-consent disclosure must say the person isn’t required to agree “as a condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services,” under the operative definition. The FCC’s 2012 order, borrowing the FTC’s wording, describes consent obtained “without requiring, directly or indirectly, that the agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service.”

That language covers purchases, not contest entry, so a free sweepstakes that requires a text opt-in doesn’t literally make consent a condition of buying anything. The risk grows when entry runs through a purchase, such as a receipt upload, and the text box is mandatory. Then a plaintiff can argue the consent was “indirectly” tied to the purchase.

My advice is simpler. Make the text checkbox optional and unchecked, and let people enter without it. An optional box is the best evidence you’ll have that the entrant chose texts on purpose. State sweepstakes laws are outside this post.

Does an entry collected by a co-sponsor or partner cover our texts?

Count on it only if the form named your company as a sender.

The operative definition authorizes “the seller,” and the 2012 order describes consent to calls “by or on behalf of a specific seller.” The Do Not Call exemption in § 64.1200(c)(2)(ii) asks for an agreement “to be contacted by this seller” that includes the number.

The vacated one-to-one rule would have barred consent “unless (1) he consents to calls from only one entity at a time,” as the Eleventh Circuit described it in Insurance Marketing Coalition. With that rule gone, a single form can still collect consent for more than one named sponsor. I’d list each sponsor by name, right beside the checkbox. A hyperlink to a page of unnamed marketing partners isn’t something I’d want to defend.

Don’t count on the established business relationship exception to fill the gap. In Trim v. Mayvenn, the seller argued the plaintiff’s sweepstakes entry created that relationship for Do Not Call purposes. Noting that Congress told the FCC to keep its Do Not Call rules consistent with the FTC’s, the court read the TCPA exemption to match the FTC’s identical one, quoted the FTC’s view that a “sweepstakes entry form does not create an [EBR] for purposes of the TSR,” and held the seller hadn’t shown it was entitled to summary judgment on that ground. It’s one district court’s ruling, but I wouldn’t build a program around the opposite view.

Is a text-to-enter keyword consent to later marketing texts?

It covers the reply the entrant asked for. Ongoing marketing takes more.

When someone texts a keyword like WIN to a short code, I’d treat the first reply as low risk if it stays narrow. In its 2015 order, the FCC found that “a one-time text sent in response to a consumer’s request for information does not violate the TCPA,” provided it’s sent immediately and “contains only the information requested by the consumer with no other marketing or advertising information.” An entry confirmation that says only that should fit. A confirmation that also pitches this week’s sale doesn’t.

For the texts that follow, the keyword text can serve as the signature, since the 2012 order counts permission given by text message. The disclosures have to reach the entrant before that text. The 2015 order noted that some businesses put the written-consent disclosures in the call-to-action display itself, and warned: “If the business sends more than a single text as a response to the consumer, however, our rules require prior express written consent with the specified disclosures.” I’d put the full disclosures in the ad that announces the keyword and keep the first reply to a plain entry confirmation. Carrier registration and short-code rules add their own layer for keyword programs, which our post on carrier texting rules and 10DLC covers.

How long does an entry’s consent last, and what ends it?

Nothing in the FCC’s written-consent definition sets an expiration date. I’d treat signed consent as lasting until the entrant revokes it, limited to the seller and the kind of messages the form described.

Because Insurance Marketing Coalition also struck the “logically and topically associated” requirement, the operative definition has no subject-matter limit of its own. The form’s words still matter. A disclosure promising texts only about the giveaway invites a fight over later promotions, so I’d cover marketing texts generally. Old lists carry a separate risk, since numbers get reassigned. For a list more than a year old, I’d re-confirm consent by email or at the next purchase, not by text.

Revocation got stricter on April 11, 2025. For consent to autodialed or prerecorded messages and for Do Not Call permission, an entrant may revoke “by using any reasonable method to clearly express a desire not to receive further calls or text messages from the caller or sender,” under § 64.1200(a)(10). Seven reply words, such as stop and unsubscribe, count automatically, and other wording counts if a reasonable person would read it as a request to stop. Requests must be honored “within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days from receipt of such request.” Senders of covered texts also “may not designate an exclusive means to request revocation of consent,” so official rules that limit opt-outs to replying STOP don’t control. For autodialer and prerecorded-voice purposes, one confirmation text is allowed if it only confirms the opt-out, carries no marketing, and is the only additional message sent, and under § 64.1200(a)(12) “If the confirmation text is sent within five minutes of receipt, it will be presumed to fall within the consumer’s prior express consent.”

One piece is on hold. In DA 25-312, released April 7, 2025, the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau granted a limited waiver delaying until April 11, 2026 the revocation rule “to the extent the rule requires callers to treat a request to revoke consent made by a called party in response to one type of message as applicable to all future robocalls and robotexts from that caller on unrelated matters.” Contract terms that try to make consent irrevocable raise their own issues, covered in our post on contractual consent and Reyes.

How sweepstakes-text claims line up against the defenses

The damages figures, the two-text threshold, and the reasonable-practices defense all come from 47 U.S.C. § 227, subsections (b)(3) and (c)(5). Trebling is up to the court.

Records that prove an entrant said yes

When a claim arrives, I’d start with the records of the moment of entry:

1. Hold every entry record for litigation: the timestamp, number, IP address, checkbox state, and a capture of the entry form and official rules as each version appeared, along with the text logs and platform data for the numbers involved.
2. Export the opt-out and internal do-not-call logs, with the date and wording of each reply.
3. Pull the National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and the dates of the Registry versions used.
4. Collect co-sponsor and vendor agreements, lead or entry transfer files, keyword campaign settings, and every message template sent.
5. Call a lawyer before answering the demand letter, contacting the entrant, or offering anything to settle.

When a claim involving texts sent to contest and sweepstakes entrants is filed as a proposed class action, the firm’s page on defending TCPA class actions in California covers what comes next.

Sweepstakes texting questions from marketing and legal teams

Does agreeing to the official rules count as consent to marketing texts?

I wouldn’t rely on it. The FCC’s definition calls for a clear and conspicuous disclosure, separate from other terms, that the person is agreeing to marketing texts from the seller and needn’t agree as a condition of purchase. A texting clause inside the official rules, reached through a link, looks a lot like the privacy-policy placement that the Trim court found no showing was clear and conspicuous.

Can we text everyone who entered last year’s giveaway?

Only the entrants who agreed to marketing texts from your company. The written-consent rule has no expiration date, but older lists carry reassigned numbers. One federal court, in Trim, held a sweepstakes entry didn’t create an established business relationship, so I wouldn’t rely on the entry alone for Registry numbers. A purchase supports that relationship for only 18 months, and a do-not-call request ends it.

Do official rules that say “reply STOP to opt out” limit how entrants can revoke?

No. Since April 11, 2025, senders of texts covered by the consent and Do Not Call rules can’t designate an exclusive way to revoke. Your rules can point entrants to STOP, but a reply in the entrant’s own words that reasonably asks you to quit must be honored within a reasonable time, no later than ten business days.

When a sweepstakes text becomes a lawsuit

If your company has been sued or received a demand letter over texts sent to sweepstakes or giveaway entrants, the entry form as it appeared on the day of entry is usually the most important document in the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving texts sent to contest and sweepstakes entrants. 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, in the eCFR point-in-time version as of June 7, 2025. The operative written-consent definition appears in the December 2023 eCFR version.

The FCC orders are the 2012 Report and Order, FCC 12-21 (Feb. 15, 2012), the 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72 (July 10, 2015), the one-to-one postponement order, DA 25-90 (Jan. 24, 2025), and the revocation waiver order, DA 25-312 (Apr. 7, 2025).

The court decisions are Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021); Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025); and Trim v. Mayvenn, Inc., No. 20-cv-03917-MMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2022) (order denying summary judgment).

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of June 7, 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.