Ten business days. That’s the longest the FCC’s rules give a business to honor a STOP reply. One confirmation text right after the opt-out is allowed, and texts inside the window generally aren’t violations. Claims usually come from systems that miss a reply, treat an affiliate as a separate sender, or restart a campaign without the suppression list. A company facing an opt-out claim should check its logs before it concedes anything, because timing and affiliate rules often cut in its favor.
What a STOP reply does under the rules
It does two things at once. First, it revokes consent for automated and prerecorded messages: under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10), a reply of stop, quit, end, revoke, opt out, cancel, or unsubscribe is a reasonable means per se, and a reply in other words still counts if a reasonable person would read it that way. The sender “must treat that reply text as a valid revocation request if a reasonable person would understand those words to have conveyed a request to revoke consent.”
Second, for telemarketing it’s a do-not-call request under the company’s internal list. The rule gives a reasonable time, and “This period may not exceed ten (10) business days from the receipt of such request,” per § 64.1200(d)(3). It also ends the established-business-relationship exception for that customer: the request “terminates an established business relationship for purposes of telemarketing and telephone solicitation even if the subscriber continues to do business with the seller.”
The confirmation text and the affiliate rule
One confirmation text is allowed, and it’s fine “as long as the confirmation text merely confirms the text recipient’s revocation request and does not include any marketing or promotional information,” according to § 64.1200(a)(12). A confirmation that carries a coupon code is a marketing text, and it’s the kind of message that turns an annoyed customer into a plaintiff.
Affiliates get some room under federal law. A do-not-call request “will not apply to affiliated entities unless the consumer reasonably would expect them to be included given the identification of the caller and (for telemarketing calls) the product being advertised,” under § 64.1200(d)(5). California is stricter for its residents: a stop request binds every entity that shares the brand name, under Business and Professions Code § 17592. I’d run one suppression list across every brand affiliate nationally. The cost is small, and the California rule makes separate lists a liability.
How the FCC’s 2026 order changes opt-outs
On September 30, 2026, the FCC adopted FCC 26-67. When it takes effect on November 25, 2026, “Callers may designate any of the following methods as the exclusive means to revoke consent,” including a reply using the standard words. The condition: “The caller must clearly and conspicuously disclose the designated method to revoke consent on the call or in the text.” A company that designates reply words and discloses them doesn’t have to process free-form requests, though “text senders still must honor revocation requests made using any of the standardized words,” the order says.
The order also lets a company treat an opt-out from an informational message as limited to that category, while an opt-out from marketing still ends all marketing from that sender. The order was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2026, and the published rule states: “Effective November 25, 2026.” Until then, the any-reasonable-means standard described above still applies. For most companies that text, designating STOP as the exclusive method and adding it to every message is the single most useful compliance change available this year.
Where opt-out claims stand in court
The claim for texts after an opt-out runs through 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), which requires “more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity” in violation of the rules, with damages of up to $500 per violation and up to $1,500 if a court finds the violation willful or knowing. Texts inside the ten-business-day window generally don’t count. Neither does a single stray message.
Texts may not count at all. The Seventh Circuit held in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that texts aren’t “telephone calls” under § 227(c)(5). The plaintiffs there said they kept receiving texts after replying STOP, and the court affirmed dismissal anyway. The Ninth Circuit hasn’t decided the question, so a California defendant can still raise Steidinger in a text-only opt-out case. Two California federal courts declined to follow it in October 2026, in Lewis v. Tenth Hall and Combs v. UG Franchise Operations, and according to the Combs order, the complaint there alleged texts sent after the plaintiff asked them to stop.
Florida adds a pre-suit step for its residents. Under Florida’s telephone solicitation statute, a consumer can sue over texts only after replying STOP and waiting 15 days, which gives a company a chance to cure. Our post on state mini-TCPA laws covers Florida’s statute and similar laws in Oklahoma and Maryland.
Opt-out exposure at a glance
| Situation | Rule | Exposure | What usually decides it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marketing texts within ten business days of STOP | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3) | Generally none | The timing of each message |
| One confirmation text with no marketing | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(12) | None | The content of the confirmation |
| Marketing texts after the window, more than once in a year | 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) | Up to $500 per text, or up to $1,500 if willful or knowing | Steidinger and the opt-out logs |
| Texts from an affiliate brand | 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(5); Bus. & Prof. Code § 17592 for California | Depends on reasonable expectation and state law | Brand naming and the product advertised |
If an opt-out claim arrives
- Preserve the full message history for the number, including inbound replies, under a litigation hold.
- Pull the opt-out record: the exact reply, when the system received it, how it was classified, and when suppression took effect.
- Pull Registry scrub records for the campaigns involved, since many opt-out claims are paired with Do Not Call claims.
- Collect the message templates, the confirmation-text content, and any affiliate or vendor sending agreements.
- Talk to a lawyer before responding to the claimant or offering a credit, which can be read as an admission.
The firm’s California TCPA defense lawyers page explains how it approaches claims involving texts sent after an opt-out request.
Opt-out questions from texting programs
What if our system didn’t recognize the customer’s reply?
Today, a reply in other words still revokes consent if a reasonable person would read it as an opt-out, so an unrecognized “please stop” can count. Starting November 25, 2026, when the FCC’s new order takes effect, a company that designates and discloses an exclusive method can rely on it, but it must still honor all seven standard words. Audit how your platform handles free-form replies now. Whether a contract can limit revocation is a separate question, covered in our post on contractual consent after Reyes.
Is one text after the window a violation we’ll be sued over?
It can be a violation, but the private claim requires more than one violating message from the same sender within 12 months. A single late text, promptly fixed, rarely supports a lawsuit. Repeated texts after the window are what plaintiffs’ lawyers look for.
Can we send a confirmation text after someone replies STOP?
Yes, one. It has to confirm the opt-out and nothing more, with no marketing or promotional content, and it must be the only additional message. A confirmation sent within five minutes is presumed to fall within the customer’s prior consent. A delayed one requires showing the delay was reasonable.
Does an opt-out from one of our brands cover the others?
Under federal rules, only if the customer would reasonably expect it to, based on how the caller identified itself and what it was selling. Under California law, a stop request binds every entity sharing the brand name. Running one suppression list across related brands avoids both questions.
Defending claims over texts sent after an opt-out
If your company is accused of texting customers after they replied STOP, the opt-out logs and the timing of each message usually decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving texts sent after an opt-out request. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as published in the eCFR through October 23, 2026. The change is FCC 26-67 (adopted Sept. 30, 2026), published at 91 Fed. Reg. 67214 (Oct. 26, 2026) and effective Nov. 25, 2026. The statute is 47 U.S.C. § 227. The appellate decision is Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026). The October 2026 California orders are Lewis v. Tenth Hall, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01810-AC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2026), and Combs v. UG Franchise Operations, LLC, No. 5:26-cv-01764-KK-DTB (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2026). State statutes are Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17592 and Fla. Stat. § 501.059.
Updated October 27, 2026, to add the November 25, 2026 effective date of FCC 26-67 and two October 2026 California rulings on Steidinger.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of October 27, 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.