RCS, iMessage, and WhatsApp: Do They Count Under the TCPA?
A business that sends marketing over RCS, iMessage, or WhatsApp is using channels that don’t travel as SMS, and the TCPA contains no exception for them. Courts treat a text as a call because it reaches a phone number, and an app message to a phone number looks much the same. Until a court rules otherwise, the safest plan is to run every phone-number-addressed channel under the same consent and opt-out rules as SMS, with quiet hours applied too.
Why does a text count as a call?
The statute doesn’t define “call,” and the courts and the FCC filled the gap. The FCC said in 2003 that the prohibition on autodialed and prerecorded calls to wireless numbers “encompasses both voice calls and text calls to wireless numbers including, for example, short message service (SMS) calls, provided the call is made to a telephone number assigned to such service,” in paragraph 165 of its Report and Order, FCC 03-153.
The Ninth Circuit followed that view in Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009), holding that a text message is a call under the statute. It reasoned that, “Given that the TCPA was enacted to regulate the receipt of automated telephone calls, Congress used the word” call “to refer to an attempt to communicate by telephone.” The Ninth Circuit later described that holding as framed “in terms of the then-applicable deference required to be given to the FCC’s construction,” in Howard.
Deference has since changed, and the result held. In January 2026, in Howard v. Republican National Committee, the Ninth Circuit concluded that a text is a call even without such deference, observing that “an auto-dialed text message to a phone number thus frequently entails an immediate intrusion on privacy comparable to that associated with the ring of an incoming auto-dialed phone call.”
Does that reasoning reach app-based messaging?
It might, and a business should plan as though it does. The FCC’s language in paragraph 165 is tied to “a telephone number assigned to such service,” which describes SMS and similar messages addressed to a phone number. RCS messages and iMessages sent to a phone number are addressed in the same way and land on the same device, often in the same inbox. A plaintiff will say the intrusion is identical. A defendant will say the message traveled over the internet as data and not as a text on a wireless carrier’s network.
I wouldn’t build a program on the defense’s version. The courts’ reasoning has focused on the purpose of the statute and on the plain meaning of a call as an attempt to communicate by telephone, and a message to a phone number from a business is easy to fit in that frame. WhatsApp and similar apps are less clear when the message is addressed to an account name or a username and not to a phone number, since the telephone number element is less certainly met. Even there, the number is usually the account identifier, so I’d expect a plaintiff to argue it is.
The Seventh Circuit’s July 2026 decision in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services adds another layer. It held that § 227(c)(5) does not permit plaintiffs to sue for the receipt of unwanted texts. If that reading spreads, it could cover any channel a court treats as a text, but it concerns one section only, and it doesn’t bind California courts.
What stays the same whichever channel you use?
Consent and opt-outs work as they do for SMS, and so does the equipment question. The autodialer provision still depends on the Supreme Court’s definition in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, a device that “must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random or sequential generator or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.” Most platforms don’t meet it, whatever channel they send on.
The Do Not Call rules apply to telephone solicitations by text, and the FCC’s rule on revoking consent applies to “calls or text messages,” in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10). A customer who replies STOP on an RCS thread has said stop to your company, and the thread’s technology doesn’t change that.
| Channel | Addressed to | Practical treatment |
|---|---|---|
| SMS and MMS | Phone number | Fully covered; existing rules |
| RCS | Phone number | Treat as SMS: same consent, same opt-out rules |
| iMessage to a phone number | Phone number | Same |
| WhatsApp to a phone number | Phone number as account ID | Same until a court says otherwise |
| App message to a username | Account name | Less clear; still apply the same consent standard |
How should a company run multichannel campaigns?
Use one consent record and one suppression list for every phone-number-addressed channel. A customer who agreed to texts has not necessarily agreed to WhatsApp messages, so the disclosure should name the channels you will use. And a stop on any channel should suppress them all.
Watch the fallback behavior. Many platforms try RCS first and fall back to SMS if the recipient’s device can’t receive it. That means a single campaign can produce messages on two different channels, with different delivery logs. Make sure the logs record which channel delivered each message and when, because a quiet-hours claim depends on the time of delivery.
Also decide how replies will be handled. Rich messaging invites conversation, and conversational replies create their own record. A reply that says to stop, in any words a reasonable person would understand, needs to reach the suppression list in the same way as a keyword on SMS.
How would a court sort out the channel question?
Probably on the logs. A plaintiff would have to show that the message went to a phone number, that it arrived on the plaintiff’s device, and that your company sent it. The defense would test each link. Was the recipient’s number the identifier, or did the platform route the message by an account name? Did the platform deliver it as SMS after an RCS attempt failed? Who actually pressed send, the company or a vendor?
I’d expect most of those fights to be decided by records and not by doctrine. A company that can show which channel carried each message, when it was delivered, and what consent sat behind it is in a far better position than one that has to reconstruct the answer from a vendor’s dashboard after the demand letter arrives. Ask your platform now what it retains and for how long, and put the answer in writing. If you learn the retention period only after the demand letter arrives, it’s too late to change it.
There’s a practical point on class exposure as well. If one campaign mixes SMS and RCS delivery to the same list, a plaintiff will plead all of it as texts and let the defense argue the difference. Consistent consent and suppression rules across channels take that argument off the table, which is a better outcome than winning it.
What to gather if a claim over app-based messages arrives
- Pull the platform logs showing the channel, the delivery time, and the recipient identifier for each message.
- Collect the consent record and any language that named the channels.
- Export the stop requests and replies from every channel.
- Identify the vendor or platform settings, including any fallback rules.
- Wait to respond to a demand letter or contact the recipient until a lawyer has reviewed the file.
The firm’s California TCPA defense page describes how these claims move through court. For related reading, see the earlier posts on CTIA rules and 10DLC registration and on AI text chatbots and conversational SMS.
Questions businesses ask about app-based marketing
Is an iMessage a text under the TCPA?
Treat it as one. It’s addressed to a phone number and arrives on a phone, which is why courts treat texts as calls.
Does a WhatsApp marketing message need TCPA consent?
Assume so when it’s sent to a phone number, and keep records showing the consent behind it. The platform also has its own rules, which are separate from the TCPA and enforceable by the platform.
Do the 2026 appellate cases help with these channels?
They help on the questions they decided. Howard treats a text as a call for the prerecorded-voice provision, and Steidinger limits one private claim in the Seventh Circuit. Neither addressed app-based channels.
What should the consent language say?
It should name the company, the channels, the types and frequency of messages, and how to stop, and the customer should agree to it by an act that you can record.
Defending claims over messages on newer channels
If your company has been sued or received a demand letter over marketing sent through RCS or an app, the channel logs, the consent record, and the delivery times will drive the defense. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving texts and other messages to phone numbers. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a 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 on October 1, 2026. The FCC order is FCC 03-153 (July 3, 2003).
The court decisions are Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009); Howard v. Republican National Committee, No. 23-3826 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026); Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026); and Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021).
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of October 1, 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.