Review-Request Texts: Is “Rate Your Visit” a TCPA Marketing Message?
A text that asks a customer to rate a visit or leave a review looks harmless, but the TCPA looks at the purpose of the message and not at its label. If the text only asks for feedback, it is an informational message. If it also pushes a coupon, a rewards balance, or a return visit, a plaintiff will call it marketing, and marketing needs stricter consent. A company that keeps its review requests plain keeps its exposure small.
When does a review request count as marketing?
When its purpose is to encourage a future purchase. The FCC’s rules define telemarketing as “the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services,” in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(13). An advertisement is “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services,” under § 64.1200(f)(1).
Neither definition mentions reviews. The question is whether the message, read as a whole, is meant to sell. The FCC took that approach in its 2003 order, saying that the prerecorded-message rule should depend on “the purpose of the message” and not on how the caller describes it, in paragraph 141 of FCC 03-153.
The same order covers this exact scenario. It describes messages that “may inquire about a customer’s satisfaction with a product already purchased, but are motivated in part by the desire to ultimately sell additional goods or services,” and says such calls would “in most instances” be advertisements regardless of the customer-service element, in paragraph 142 of that order. Add a sales motive to a satisfaction check and the FCC says the message will most often be an advertisement.
What did the Ninth Circuit do with a “courtesy” message?
It looked past the courtesy. In Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 705 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2012), Best Buy argued that its prerecorded calls to rewards members were purely informational reminders that certificates were about to expire. The court disagreed, reasoning that the calls urged listeners to redeem points that could be used only at Best Buy, and that redeeming them required more purchases there.
The court added a point that matters for any short message: “Neither the statute nor the regulations require an explicit mention of a good, product, or service where the implication is clear from the context,” as the opinion puts it. A review request that never names a product can still carry a sales purpose.
Two limits apply. Chesbro involved prerecorded calls to a home line, not texts, so a plaintiff would be arguing from analogy. And the court gave the FCC’s 2003 order deference, a step the Supreme Court has since changed: in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., a district court in a private TCPA case “should interpret the TCPA under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation.” Today a court would weigh the 2003 order, not defer to it. I wouldn’t count on that to rescue a message that looks like a sales pitch, because the regulatory definitions of advertisement and telemarketing are written into the rule text too.
What consent does each kind of message need?
It depends on the category, and the gap between them is large. For autodialed or prerecorded calls and texts that “include or introduce an advertisement or constitute telemarketing,” the rule requires a call “made with the prior express written consent of the called party,” in § 64.1200(a)(2). A purely informational text to a cell phone needs a lower level, prior express consent. The FCC has said that people who give a business their number have in effect agreed to be called about the matter for which they gave it: “persons who knowingly release their phone numbers have in effect given their invitation or permission to be called at the number which they have given, absent instructions to the contrary,” in paragraph 141 of FCC 15-72.
So a customer who gave a phone number at checkout can usually be texted a plain request for feedback on that purchase. The same customer has not necessarily signed a written agreement to receive promotions. A message that mixes the two moves from the first category to the second, and the consent record that supported the first no longer fits.
| Message | Likely category | Consent a plaintiff will say is required |
|---|---|---|
| Asks the customer to rate the visit by reply | Informational | Prior express consent, shown by giving the number |
| Gives only a review link | Informational, if nothing else is offered | Prior express consent |
| Offers a discount in exchange for a review | Telemarketing | Prior express written consent |
| Asks for a review and adds a current sale | Dual purpose | Prior express written consent |
| Asks for feedback and mentions expiring rewards points, as in Chesbro | Dual purpose | Prior express written consent |
The autodialer element still matters. After Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, an autodialer 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.” Many feedback platforms don’t meet that definition, so the written-consent rule may not apply to them at all. The classification still decides other claims, because a message that counts as telemarketing can support a Do Not Call claim, and Chesbro treated the calls there as telemarketing under that rule. I would not stake a program on the autodialer defense alone.
How should a company word and time a review request?
Keep it to one purpose. I’d drop the coupon from the review request. A discount for leaving a review is the most common way a feedback message becomes an advertisement, and it adds nothing to the plain request. If the business wants to send an offer, it should send it as a separate marketing message to customers who gave written consent for marketing.
Wording matters in the other direction too. The message should identify the business, say what it concerns, and give one link or one reply option. It should not mention rewards balances, upcoming sales, or invitations to return. Chesbro shows that a thank-you for shopping and a nudge toward a website can read as an invitation to buy.
Handling replies matters as much as the first message. A customer who answers STOP has revoked consent, and the rule treats words such as “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe” as a reasonable means per se, under § 64.1200(a)(10). Review reminders are the messages most likely to go out after an opt-out, because they run from a separate system that nobody connected to the suppression list. Connect them.
For related reading, see the earlier posts on abandoned-cart and order texts and on survey and market research calls.
What to gather if a claim over a feedback text arrives
- Pull the exact text of every review request and any template history, including each version sent during the claim period.
- Collect the record showing how and when the customer gave the number, and what the form said.
- Export send logs with times, and match them against stop requests and the suppression list.
- Identify who built the campaign and whether a vendor’s platform added any promotional content.
- Wait to respond to a demand letter or contact the recipient until a lawyer has reviewed the file.
The firm’s TCPA litigation defense page describes how these claims move through court.
Questions businesses ask about feedback texts
Can we text customers asking for a review?
Often, yes, if the message is purely a request for feedback about a purchase the customer made and the customer gave you the number. Keep offers out of it, honor opt-outs, and keep the record of how you got the number.
Does adding a discount code change the analysis?
It can. An offer tied to a review gives the message a sales purpose, and a plaintiff will argue that it is telemarketing needing written consent. The safer course is to separate the feedback request from any promotion.
Is a satisfaction survey the same as a review request?
Similar, and the same test applies. A survey that only gathers opinions is informational, while a survey sent to build a sales list or followed by an offer can be treated as marketing. The purpose of the message decides.
What if a customer never replied STOP but complained about the texts?
Treat any reasonable statement that the customer doesn’t want the messages as a revocation. The rule asks for a reasonable method, not magic words, so log the complaint and suppress the number.
Defending claims over feedback and review texts
If your company is accused of sending review requests that a plaintiff says were really advertising, the exact wording of each template and the consent record behind it usually decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving customer feedback and review-request texts. 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 on January 14, 2026. The FCC orders are FCC 03-153 (July 3, 2003) and FCC 15-72 (July 10, 2015).
The court decisions are Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 705 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2012); McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025); 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 January 14, 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.