Are Text Messages Phone Calls? Courts Disagree

Federal courts are divided over whether marketing text messages count as “telephone calls” under the TCPA’s private Do Not Call lawsuit provision. That disagreement can affect whether a consumer’s lawsuit proceeds.

In July 2026, the Seventh Circuit ruled in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that unwanted texts do not support private claims under §227(c)(5). A North Carolina federal court followed that reasoning in September. Other district courts have reached the opposite conclusion, treating texts as telephone calls for these claims.

For SMS marketers, these favorable decisions address a specific legal issue. They do not eliminate other potential TCPA claims, state-law exposure, or carrier requirements. The Seventh Circuit expressly left other agency enforcement provisions undisturbed.

SubscriberVerify continues monitoring repeat TCPA litigators and maintaining an updated database to help customers identify associated phone numbers before outreach.

As courts interpret the law differently, consistent screening remains a practical part of campaign preparation. Litigator checks, DNC screening, consent records, and prompt opt-out handling work together to help businesses make informed decisions and reduce avoidable risk.

State	Federal court	Supporting decision
Arizona	District of Arizona	D’Agostino v. Circle K Stores, April 2026. Applied Ninth Circuit precedent to reject the argument that texts fall outside the TCPA. govinfo.gov
California	Central District	Combs v. UG Franchise Operations, Oct. 2, 2026. Expressly declined to follow the Seventh Circuit’s contrary interpretation. storage.courtlistener.com
California	Northern District	Wilson v. MEDVIDI, Oct. 7, 2025. Rejected the argument that §227(c) excludes text messages. govinfo.gov
California	Southern District	Esquivel v. Mona Lee, Nov. 24, 2025. Allowed a text-based DNC claim to proceed. govinfo.gov
Connecticut	District of Connecticut	Wilson v. Easy Spirit, March 31, 2026. Found that the ordinary meaning of “telephone call” includes texts. govinfo.gov
Louisiana	Middle District	McGonigle v. ShoppersChoice.com, Feb. 13, 2026. Held §227(c)(5) applies to cellphone texts. govinfo.gov
New Jersey	District of New Jersey	Owen-Brooks v. Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate, Aug. 21, 2026. Held §227(c) protects against unsolicited texts. govinfo.gov
New York	Southern District	Wilson v. Better Mortgage, Dec. 5, 2025. Expressly held §227(c) applies to texts. storage.courtlistener.com
Oregon	District of Oregon	Wilson v. Skopos Financial, July 21, 2025. Recognized text-based DNC claims. govinfo.gov
Pennsylvania	Eastern District	Pero v. Brown-Daub Chevrolet, June 17, 2026. Expressly held a text is a call under §227(c). govinfo.gov
Texas	Southern District	Alvarez v. Fiesta Nissan, Jan. 26, 2026. Interpreted “telephone calls” to include texts. govinfo.gov
Texas	Northern District	Callier v. The Finish Line, Sept. 8, 2026. Adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation treating texts as actionable. govinfo.gov
Texas	Western District	Callier v. American Auto Group, June 16, 2026. Adopted a recommendation supporting text-based claims in a default judgment; the defendant did not contest the issue. govinfo.gov
Washington	Western District	Hopkins v. HomeLight, July 13, 2026. Expressly held texts constitute calls under §227(c). storage.courtlistener.com
West Virginia	Northern District	Mey v. Liberty Home Guard, Jan. 5, 2026. Independently concluded that texts are calls. storage.courtlistener.com

State	Federal court	Supporting decision
Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin	All federal districts within the Seventh Circuit	Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, July 14, 2026. Binding appeals court precedent excluding texts from §227(c)(5). media.ca7.uscourts.gov
Alabama	Northern District	Conrad v. Hart Consumer Products, Sept. 16, 2026. Followed the Seventh Circuit’s interpretation. govinfo.gov
Colorado	District of Colorado	Radvansky v. 1st Class Medical, Sept. 23, 2026. Dismissed the text-based claim with prejudice. govinfo.gov
Florida	Northern District	Davis v. CVS Pharmacy, Aug. 26, 2025. Held texts are not telephone calls under §227(c)(5). The Georgia opinion below discusses and follows this ruling. govinfo.gov
Florida	Middle District	Internicola v. MortgagePros, Sept. 24, 2026. Adopted the conclusion that texts do not support §227(c)(5) claims. storage.courtlistener.com
Georgia	Northern District	Radvansky v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Feb. 17, 2026. Held “telephone call” does not encompass texts. govinfo.gov
Missouri	Western District	Rush v. SelectQuote Insurance Services, July 30, 2026. Held texts are not telephone calls under §227(c)(5). storage.courtlistener.com
North Carolina	Middle District	Card v. R.J. Reynolds, Sept. 3, 2026. Followed Steidinger and dismissed the text-based claim. www.hinshawlaw.com
Ohio	Northern District	Stockdale v. Skymount Property Group, March 3, 2026. Held §227(c)(5) does not encompass texts. govinfo.gov
Virginia	Western District	Lowrey v. Twilio, Oct. 1, 2026. Held text-based §227(c)(5) claims must be dismissed. storage.courtlistener.com

Outcome	Case	Relevant detail
Texts ARE calls	McGonigle v. Office Depot, Nov. 25, 2025	Judge William Dimitrouleas held texts qualify as calls. storage.courtlistener.com
Texts are NOT calls	Anthony v. Brian Marketing Group, Sept. 11, 2026	Judge Aileen Cannon adopted Steidinger as an independent ground for denying default judgment. The defendant did not appear. blogs.duanemorris.com