Hotels, Resorts, and Venues: TCPA Rules for Guest Texts
A hotel, resort, or event venue can text a guest about the booking the guest made, such as a confirmation, a check-in time, or a gate change, on the strength of the number the guest gave for that booking. A promotional text is different. Under the FCC’s rules, an automated marketing text needs the guest’s signed written consent, and a text that mixes booking details with an offer can be treated as marketing. Businesses that separate the two streams, and keep consent records for the second, have solid defenses.
Which guest texts are “informational,” and why does it matter?
Because the consent standard depends on it.
For autodialed or prerecorded calls and texts to cell phones that aren’t marketing, the FCC’s rule requires “prior express consent,” under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1). Marketing messages need more. The rule bars autodialed or prerecorded calls that include an advertisement or constitute telemarketing “other than a call made with the prior express written consent of the called party,” with narrow exceptions, under § 64.1200(a)(2). Prior express written consent is a signed agreement, which can be electronic, authorizing marketing messages to a specific number.
A reservation confirmation, a room-ready alert, or a reminder that a show starts at 8 is informational. In my view, a guest who types a mobile number into a booking form expects exactly those messages, and that’s the strongest consent position a hotel has.
When does a booking text become a marketing text?
When it promotes something, even in passing.
The FCC’s test looks at purpose. In its 2012 order, the FCC described the standard from 2003: “if the call, notwithstanding its free offer or other information, is intended to offer property, goods, or services for sale either during the call, or in the future, that call is an advertisement.” The FCC’s 2003 order gave an example that should catch every travel marketer’s eye: a prerecorded message “describing a new product, a vacation destination,” that asks the listener to call to learn more, is an unsolicited advertisement without the person’s permission.
One caution: after the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., the Court held that district courts “are not bound by the agency’s interpretation, but instead must determine the meaning of the law under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation,” so FCC statements like these persuade but don’t bind. The Ninth Circuit applied the purpose approach in Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 705 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2012). The case involved prerecorded calls to a customer’s home phone about his rewards points, and the retailer argued they were “purely informational courtesy calls.” The court disagreed, because redeeming the points required more purchases. It wrote: “Neither the statute nor the regulations require an explicit mention of a good, product, or service where the implication is clear from the context.” And Chesbro added: “Any additional information provided in the calls does not inoculate them.” The court reversed summary judgment for the retailer.
Loyalty programs are everywhere in hospitality. A text reminding a guest of a points balance and inviting the next booking is the Chesbro fact pattern with a different logo. A check-in text that adds a paid suite upgrade is a dual-purpose message, and I’d treat it as marketing.
What consent does a hotel need for promotional texts?
Signed written consent that meets the FCC’s definition, if the texts are automated.
As of this writing, the eCFR displays a 2023 “one-to-one” version of the consent definition at § 64.1200(f)(9), but that version never took effect. The Eleventh Circuit vacated it in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC on January 24, 2025. The definition that governs is the earlier one in the eCFR’s December 2023 version: “an agreement, in writing, bearing the signature of the person called that clearly authorizes the seller to deliver or cause to be delivered to the person called advertisements or telemarketing messages,” together with the telephone number. The agreement needs a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the guest authorizes those messages and isn’t required to agree “as a condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services.”
That last clause is where booking engines go wrong. A required checkbox agreeing to receive texts, offers included, placed on the reservation form, ties marketing consent to the purchase. Make the marketing box optional and separate from the box or field that collects the number for the booking itself. Our post on sweepstakes texts and consent covers the form mechanics in more detail.
What about calls inviting guests to a timeshare or vacation-ownership tour?
They’re telephone solicitations, and the Do Not Call rules apply.
The FCC defines a telephone solicitation as a call or message “for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services,” in § 64.1200(f)(15). An invitation to a sales presentation fits that definition. If the number belongs to a residential subscriber on the National Do Not Call Registry, the call needs an exception, such as an established business relationship. A guest’s stay counts as a transaction, and the relationship lasts 18 months after it under § 64.1200(f)(5), ending sooner if the guest asks you to stop. The relationship belongs to the business the guest dealt with. A separately owned sales company calling the hotel’s guest list should assume it has none of its own.
How do STOP replies work for guests who get both kinds of texts?
Carefully. The revocation rules changed this year.
Since April 11, 2025, a guest may revoke consent “by using any reasonable method to clearly express a desire not to receive further calls or text messages from the caller or sender,” and seven listed reply words, including stop and unsubscribe, count automatically, under § 64.1200(a)(10). Requests must be honored “within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days from receipt of such request.”
One piece is on hold. In DA 25-312, released April 7, 2025, the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau delayed until April 11, 2026 the 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.” For now, the rule doesn’t require a business to treat a STOP reply to a promotion as revoking consent for booking messages on unrelated matters. The rule also allows one confirmation text, which may ask the guest to clarify which messages the request covers, under § 64.1200(a)(12). I’d use that clarification text, and I’d plan now for April 2026.
Guest-text claims and the defenses that answer them
| Claim theory | Statute or rule | Exposure per text | Defenses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Automated promotional text without written consent | 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), (b)(3); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2) | $500 or actual loss, whichever is greater, and up to $1,500 if willful or knowing | Signed written consent, a purely informational message, or no autodialer under Duguid |
| Tour or sales call to a number on the National Do Not Call Registry | 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) | Up to $500 or actual loss, whichever is greater, and up to $1,500 if willful or knowing | Established business relationship, signed written permission, the more-than-one-call threshold, or reasonable practices |
| Texts after a STOP reply | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10) | Same as the underlying claim | Opt-out logs showing processing within ten business days, and the April 2026 waiver for unrelated message types |
The autodialer defense comes from Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021), which requires “the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be called.” The damages rules are in 47 U.S.C. § 227, subsections (b)(3) and (c)(5).
What to pull together when a guest-text claim arrives
Hospitality data lives in many systems at once: the booking engine, the property management system, the loyalty platform, and the texting vendor. Franchised properties add a brand layer, which our post on franchisor liability for franchisee texts addresses, and the firm’s California TCPA defense lawyers page covers how these claims move from demand letter to class action. Then:
- Issue a litigation hold for the guest’s text logs, booking records, consent and checkbox data, and the texting-platform records for the number.
- Export opt-out and internal do-not-call records, with the date and wording of each reply.
- Pull National Do Not Call Registry scrub records for any sales or tour campaigns, with Registry version dates.
- Collect the booking-engine and loyalty-platform contracts, every message template sent, and any recorded calls.
- Talk to a lawyer before replying to the demand, contacting the guest, or offering compensation.
Hospitality texting questions from operators
Can we text a guest a check-in reminder without written consent?
Yes, if the message is purely informational and the guest gave the number for the booking. Prior express consent covers informational texts under § 64.1200(a)(1). Keep promotions out of the reminder. An upgrade offer or a spa discount turns it into a marketing message that needs signed written consent if it’s automated.
Are post-stay review requests marketing?
They can be. A request that only asks for feedback reads as informational in my view. One that includes a discount on the next stay or a link to book again is encouraging a future purchase, and Chesbro treated messages that encouraged future purchases as advertisements.
Does a guest’s reservation create an established business relationship for Do Not Call purposes?
Yes, for the business the guest transacted with, for 18 months after the stay under § 64.1200(f)(5), unless the guest asks you to stop. It doesn’t replace written consent for automated marketing texts, which is a separate rule.
Defending a guest-text lawsuit
If your hotel, resort, or venue has been sued over promotional texts or tour calls, the booking forms, consent checkboxes, and opt-out logs usually decide whether the claims survive. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving promotional texts to guests. 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 version as of July 28, 2025. The operative written-consent definition appears in the December 2023 eCFR version.
The FCC documents are the 2003 Report and Order, FCC 03-153, the 2012 Report and Order, FCC 12-21, and the revocation waiver order, DA 25-312 (Apr. 7, 2025).
The court decisions are Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 705 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2012); Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025); McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-1226 (U.S. June 20, 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 July 28, 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.