Eighteen months is the number a sportsbook or online casino should know first. Under the FCC’s Do Not Call rules, a customer’s last wager or deposit creates an established business relationship that lets the operator send marketing texts to a number on the Registry, but only for 18 months, and only until the customer asks to stop. Reactivation campaigns to lapsed players, texts sent after a STOP reply, and promotions pushed through affiliates are the common claim theories. Each of those risks has records-based defenses.
Does the TCPA apply to sportsbook and casino promotional texts?
Yes. A text offering a deposit match, a bonus bet, or odds on tonight’s game is a telephone solicitation.
The FCC’s rules define a “telephone solicitation” 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,” under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(15). A promotion that invites a customer to deposit or wager fits that description, even when the offer is “free.” The rules also say the Do Not Call and internal-list requirements apply to “telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls or text messages to wireless telephone numbers,” under § 64.1200(e), to the extent described in the FCC’s 2003 order implementing the Registry.
Courts disagree about whether a text counts as a “telephone call” for a private Do Not Call suit. The Seventh Circuit held in July that texts aren’t calls under § 227(c)(5), and district courts in four other states have since dismissed texts-only claims. Two California district courts have declined to follow that ruling, as the firm’s post on Steidinger and California courts explains. The defense is worth raising in a texts-only case, but an operator shouldn’t build a compliance program on that split, because the FCC rules apply to texts either way and state laws may too.
When can an operator text a customer whose number is on the Do Not Call Registry?
With the customer’s permission, or within an established business relationship that hasn’t ended.
The Registry rule bars telephone solicitations to a “residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry,” per § 64.1200(c)(2). But the definition of telephone solicitation excludes messages to a person with “prior express invitation or permission” and to a person “with whom the caller has an established business relationship.” Permission has a form requirement: under § 64.1200(c)(2)(ii), it “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.” The established business relationship needs no writing.
The established business relationship is the part operators misjudge. The rule defines it as a relationship based on “the subscriber’s purchase or transaction with the entity within the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding the date of the telephone call,” or on an inquiry or application “within the three months immediately preceding the date of the call.” Three things follow for a betting or casino operator:
A player whose last deposit or wager was two years ago is outside the window. A reactivation text to that player’s Registry-listed number needs separate permission. A person who started a signup but never funded an account has only three months of inquiry-based coverage. And under § 64.1200(f)(5)(i), a seller-specific do-not-call request ends the relationship “even if the subscriber continues to do business with the seller,” so a player who replies STOP but keeps betting can’t be texted promotions on the strength of that activity.
Multi-brand operators have a further question. The relationship “does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included,” under § 64.1200(f)(5)(ii), so a wager with one brand may not support Registry texts from a sister brand.
The cleanest practice is to keep a dated record of each player’s last transaction and last inquiry, and to suppress Registry-listed numbers automatically when either clock runs out. That record is also the first exhibit in a defense. The rule also excuses a Registry call that results from error if, as part of its routine business practice, the seller has written Do Not Call procedures, trains its staff on them, keeps an internal do-not-call list, and uses a Registry version obtained “no more than 31 days prior to the date any call is made,” under § 64.1200(c)(2)(i). The seller must also keep records documenting that process and must not use the Registry data for any other purpose. That is why the Registry version date belongs in the file.
What happens when a player replies STOP?
The operator has to stop the marketing texts, and the FCC treats several replies as a revocation without further question.
Under § 64.1200(a)(10), a text reply of stop, quit, end, revoke, opt out, cancel, or unsubscribe automatically counts as a reasonable way to revoke consent. Other wording counts too if “a reasonable person would understand those words to have conveyed a request to revoke consent.” The rule requires revocations to be honored “within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days from receipt of such request.” For an operator that runs separate brands, apps, or state skins, the practical risk is a STOP processed by one brand’s platform and missed by another’s. An opt-out list shared across every brand the same company runs is cheaper than defending the gap.
The firm’s post on texts sent after a STOP reply covers that claim in more depth.
Who holds the bag when an affiliate sends the text?
Plaintiffs will name the operator. Whether it’s liable depends on agency.
Sports betting and iGaming operators may use affiliates and lead generators. The Do Not Call private right of action in 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) belongs to a person who received “more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity,” so a plaintiff who receives an affiliate’s promotion will usually name the operator whose bonus code appears in the message. Whether the operator is liable depends on general agency principles: how much control it had over the affiliate, whether it approved the messaging, and whether it accepted the benefits knowing how the leads were generated. The same provision gives an affirmative defense to a defendant that “has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection,” under § 227(c)(5).
Two habits reduce that exposure. Contracts should require affiliates to keep consent records for every number they text and to produce them on request. And the operator should actually ask for those records, on a sample, before a lawsuit does it. The firm’s post on buying leads and TCPA consent records covers the weak points in a typical lead vendor’s consent certificate.
Do quiet hours apply to bonus texts?
For players with no permission or established business relationship, yes. For current customers, there’s a strong argument the rule doesn’t apply.
The FCC bars telephone solicitations to a residential subscriber “before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party’s location),” under § 64.1200(c)(1). The rule reaches only telephone solicitations, and the definition excludes messages sent with a person’s “prior express invitation or permission” or to a person with an established business relationship, which covers most bonus texts to active players. For everyone else, timing matters. A promotion for a 7:30 p.m. Pacific game reaches East Coast players at 10:30 p.m. their time, after the 9 p.m. cutoff. Some state laws set stricter windows. Pairing area-code scheduling with account address data and a conservative send window is the stronger practice. The firm’s post on quiet-hours claims covers the defenses.
| Claim theory | Rule | Exposure under the statute | Records that answer it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promotions to a Registry-listed number | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2); 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) | Up to $500 per violation. A court may increase it up to three times that amount if the violation was willful or knowing | Last transaction and inquiry dates, permission records, and Registry scrub logs |
| Texts after an opt-out | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10), (d) | Same as above, for claims under the Do Not Call provision | Opt-out logs across every brand and platform, with timestamps showing processing within ten business days |
| Texts outside 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1) | Same as above | Send timestamps and recipient location data |
| Affiliate promotions | 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) (“on behalf of”) | Same as above, if agency is shown | Affiliate contracts and the affiliate’s consent records |
The statute provides that a plaintiff may “receive up to $500 in damages for each such violation,” under § 227(c)(5)(B), with an increase available only if the court finds the violation willful or knowing. In a class action, per-message exposure multiplies quickly, which is why the records in the last column matter.
What to pull together when a claim arrives
Gaming operators have more data than most defendants. Organizing it early is the advantage. For how these suits typically proceed, see the firm’s page on defending TCPA class actions in California.
- Place a hold on SMS platform logs, campaign data, and the consent and account history for the claimant’s number.
- Export opt-out replies and internal do-not-call entries for every brand and platform, with dates.
- Pull the Registry scrub records and which Registry version each campaign used.
- Gather affiliate and lead-vendor agreements, approved creative, and the affiliates’ consent records.
- Speak with a lawyer before answering a demand, contacting the player, or offering a credit or settlement.
State gaming rules on advertising and self-excluded players sit on top of the TCPA and vary by state, so the compliance team and litigation counsel should look at both.
Questions sportsbooks and casinos ask about TCPA texts
Is a “free bet” or bonus offer still a telephone solicitation?
Usually, yes. The rule covers messages that encourage the purchase of goods or services, and a bonus offer exists to drive deposits and wagers. A purely informational text, such as a withdrawal confirmation or an identity-verification code, is a different category. Texts that mix account information with a promotion raise their own questions, covered in the firm’s post on dual-purpose calls and texts.
Does a player’s account signup count as permission to text promotions?
It can, if the signup flow captured a signed, written agreement naming the operator and the number, which the Registry rule requires for permission. A funded account also creates an established business relationship for 18 months, and that needs no writing. Prerecorded or artificial-voice marketing calls need prior express written consent, which has specific disclosure requirements.
Can an operator text a self-excluded player?
The TCPA doesn’t address self-exclusion directly, but a self-excluded player who replies STOP or asks not to be contacted has revoked consent and ended any established business relationship. State gaming rules may separately bar marketing to self-excluded players. Suppressing those numbers across all channels is the safer course.
Are texts to out-of-state players governed by California law?
The TCPA is federal, so the same rules apply to a player in California or anywhere else. State telemarketing laws are a separate layer, and which ones apply generally depends on where the player is and on each statute’s own reach. That’s why a national operator needs one opt-out and suppression system that works across every state where it markets.
If your company is defending a betting-promotion text claim
If your company has been sued over promotional texts to bettors or casino players, the transaction dates, opt-out logs, and affiliate records usually decide whether the claim survives. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving promotional texts and affiliate marketing. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is 47 U.S.C. § 227. The FCC’s telemarketing and Do Not Call rules, including the definitions, the established business relationship, quiet hours, and revocation, are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of November 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.