Missed-Call Text-Back and Inbound Texts: When an Auto-Reply Is Safe
An automatic text sent to someone who just asked your business for information is usually low-risk under the TCPA if it’s a single, immediate reply that answers what the person asked for and contains no marketing. The FCC’s 2015 ruling says a one-time text “sent in response to a consumer’s request for information” doesn’t violate the TCPA when it meets those conditions. Missed calls are a harder case, and risk grows when the reply becomes a drip campaign or a promotion.
Why does an automatic reply raise TCPA questions at all?
Because the TCPA’s consent rules apply to texts, and an auto-reply is sent by a machine.
The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed in January that texts count as calls for the TCPA’s autodialer and prerecorded-voice provisions. In Howard v. Republican National Committee, No. 23-3826 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026), the court said that “even under de novo review,” its earlier reasoning supports the conclusion that a text message is a call within the meaning of the TCPA. Our post on that decision’s video-text holding covers the rest of the case.
The autodialer rule is narrower than many plaintiffs plead. An automatic telephone dialing system must have “the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be called,” under Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021). A text-back tool that replies only to the number that just called usually isn’t generating numbers at all, in my view. That’s a strong defense to an autodialer claim. It’s not the only issue, though, because the Do Not Call rules don’t depend on equipment.
What did the FCC say about texts sent in response to a request?
It said they’re fine, within limits.
In its 2015 Declaratory Ruling, the FCC found “that a one-time text sent in response to a consumer’s request for information does not violate the TCPA or the Commission’s rules so long as it: (1) is requested by the consumer; (2) is a one-time only message sent immediately in response to a specific consumer request; and (3) contains only the information requested by the consumer with no other marketing or advertising information.” The same ruling limits itself: “this ruling applies only when the on-demand text message has been expressly requested by the consumer in the first instance.”
The FCC tied that ruling to the TCPA’s legislative history, which indicates Congress didn’t mean to disrupt expected or desired messages between businesses and their customers.
Courts now give FCC interpretations “appropriate respect,” not binding deference, after the Supreme Court’s decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025). I’d expect courts to find this particular ruling persuasive, because it tracks ordinary consent principles: someone who asks for information is consenting to receive it.
Is a missed call a “request for information”?
Not always. That’s the hard case.
A customer who texts “hours?” to your business number has asked for something. A missed call is murkier. The caller wanted to reach you, but didn’t necessarily ask for a text. In my view, a single text-back that apologizes for the missed call and asks how you can help fits comfortably within the spirit of the 2015 ruling and ordinary consent principles, because it answers the contact the person started. A text-back that leads with a coupon, a booking link pushing a special, or an invitation to sign up for deals doesn’t.
Three design choices keep the missed-call reply defensible. Two of them track conditions in the 2015 ruling. The third condition, an express request, is what a missed call may lack. Send one message, not a sequence. Send it right away, while the call is fresh. And keep it to acknowledging the call and offering help.
When does an auto-reply become marketing?
When it encourages a purchase beyond what the person asked about.
The FCC defines telemarketing as a call or message “for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services,” under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(13). Autodialed marketing to cell phones requires “the prior express written consent of the called party,” under § 64.1200(a)(2).
The common failure is the follow-up. A one-time reply is covered by the 2015 ruling. Follow-up messages sent over the next week aren’t. Those need their own consent basis. If they promote anything, they need prior express written consent if sent with an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice, and the Do Not Call rules still apply. Our post on AI text chatbots covers what happens when the conversation keeps going.
Does the Do Not Call rule apply to an auto-reply?
Rarely, if the reply stays narrow.
The National Do Not Call Registry rule restricts telephone solicitations, and the definition excludes a call or message “To any person with that person’s prior express invitation or permission,” under § 64.1200(f)(15). An inquiry about your products or services also creates an established business relationship for three months under § 64.1200(f)(5), unless the person asks you to stop.
A pure acknowledgment isn’t a solicitation in the first place. And a private Do Not Call claim requires “more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity,” under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), and a single auto-reply doesn’t meet that threshold alone. Texts also face a threshold question: in Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01074 (C.D. Ill. July 21, 2025), a federal court held that “Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA does not regulate text messages.” District courts have split on that question, it’s on appeal, and the Ninth Circuit hasn’t decided it.
What if the person replies STOP to the auto-reply?
Honor it, and send no more than one confirmation.
A consumer 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 requests must be honored “within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days from receipt of such request,” under § 64.1200(a)(10). One confirmation text is allowed, and “If the confirmation text is sent within five minutes of receipt, it will be presumed to fall within the consumer’s prior express consent,” under § 64.1200(a)(12).
The requirement to apply a revocation to unrelated message types remains on hold. In DA 26-12, released January 6, 2026, the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau extended that waiver until January 31, 2027.
Auto-reply claims and the defenses that answer them
| Claim theory | Statute or rule | Exposure per text | Defenses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autodialed text without consent | 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), (b)(3) | $500 or actual loss, whichever is greater, and up to $1,500 if willful or knowing | The person’s own request, the 2015 on-demand ruling, or no autodialer under Duguid |
| Automated marketing follow-ups without written consent | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2) | Same | Signed written consent, or the message wasn’t marketing |
| Do Not Call claim | 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 | Prior express invitation, a three-month inquiry relationship, not a solicitation, the more-than-one-call threshold, or texts may not be telephone calls under § 227(c)(5) |
Records to pull when an auto-reply draws a complaint
The firm’s California TCPA defense lawyers page covers how a single demand can become a class action. When one arrives:
- Preserve the inbound call and text records showing the person contacted you first, along with the outbound message logs and platform data for the number.
- Export opt-out records and the confirmation texts sent, with time stamps.
- Pull National Do Not Call Registry scrub records for any follow-up campaigns.
- Collect the auto-reply templates and settings, including any follow-up sequences, and the texting platform contract.
- Talk to a lawyer before replying to the complaint, messaging the person, or offering to settle.
Questions about automatic text replies
Can our auto-reply include a link to book an appointment?
A link that directly answers the person’s request, such as a booking page when they asked about availability, fits the FCC’s 2015 ruling, which allows a reply that “contains only the information requested by the consumer.” A link to a sale or unrelated promotion doesn’t. Keep the link tied to the request.
Can we add the person to our marketing list after they text us?
Not on the strength of the inquiry alone, if the marketing texts are automated. The FCC’s rule requires prior express written consent for autodialed marketing. Ask in the reply whether they want offers, and add them only if they say yes in a way you can document.
Is a missed-call text-back an autodialer?
Probably not under Duguid, because the tool replies to a number that just called instead of generating numbers. Some state laws define automated systems differently. Florida’s statute restricts unsolicited sales calls involving “an automated system for the selection and dialing of telephone numbers,” under Fla. Stat. § 501.059(8)(a), and Oklahoma’s uses “selection or dialing,” which reads more broadly. Check the states you text into, and keep auto-replies informational so the consent question never comes up.
Defending a claim over automatic replies
If your company is accused of sending unwanted automated texts after customers called or messaged first, the inbound records and the content of each reply usually decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving automated replies and follow-up texts. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is 47 U.S.C. § 227. The FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, in the eCFR version as of February 28, 2026. The FCC documents are the 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72 (July 10, 2015), and the revocation waiver extension, DA 26-12 (Jan. 6, 2026).
The court decisions are Howard v. Republican National Committee, No. 23-3826 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026); McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. 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 February 28, 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.