Texts Are Not "Calls": A Big Win for SMS Marketers (With Fine Print)
If your business runs on text message marketing, a federal appeals court just handed you the most favorable TCPA ruling in years. On July 14, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit became the first federal appellate court to hold that a text message is not a "telephone call," and therefore cannot be the basis for a private Do-Not-Call lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026).
For the flood of class actions that have targeted SMS marketing over the last decade, that is a genuinely big deal. I have dealt with a number of these cases and having Steidenger to work from would have been quite helpful. But before you celebrate too hard, read the fine print. The ruling is narrower than the headlines suggest.
What the court actually held
The TCPA has several moving parts. The provision at issue here, Section 227(c)(5), is the one that lets a consumer file suit, very often as a class action, after receiving more than one telemarketing contact despite being on the National Do-Not-Call Registry or having asked the sender to stop. It has been a favorite tool of the plaintiffs' bar, and unwanted marketing texts have been a favorite target.
The Seventh Circuit looked at the words Congress actually used. The statute was written in 1991, a year before the first text message was ever sent, and back then a "telephone call" meant a voice communication. The court also noted that Congress knew how to write more broadly when it wanted to: elsewhere in the same statute it used the phrase "telephone solicitation," defined to include a "call or message." In the private-lawsuit provision, though, Congress chose the narrower word "call." The court took that choice seriously and declined to defer to the FCC's contrary interpretation.
The result: in the Seventh Circuit — Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin — a plaintiff can no longer bring a private Do-Not-Call claim based on marketing texts alone. And a persuasive case to argue for the same treatment elsewhere in the U.S.
Why e-commerce brands should care — and stay calm
This decision removes one of the most heavily litigated theories used against text marketers, at least in three states. That should reduce a meaningful slice of class-action risk and settlement pressure for brands operating there. And, it can be used as persuasive authority elsewhere.
But here is why you should not tear up your compliance playbook:
Only one provision was impacted. The court left Section 227(b) completely intact. That is the provision that governs texts sent with regulated dialing technology and, critically, the one that requires prior express written consent before you send marketing texts. The large majority of SMS class actions are brought under 227(b), and that exposure is unchanged everywhere, including in the Seventh Circuit.
It only binds three states. Outside Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, courts are still free to treat texts as calls. The Ninth Circuit — which covers California and much of the West — has reached the opposite conclusion. There is now a split among the federal appeals courts, which means the Supreme Court may eventually step in. If you market nationwide, your texting program is still exposed to Do-Not-Call claims filed elsewhere.
State "mini-TCPA" laws are untouched. Florida's Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA) and a growing list of similar state statutes impose their own consent and opt-out rules on text campaigns. This ruling does nothing to those laws.
The FCC still cares about texts. The agency continues to apply Do-Not-Call protections to text messages under separate authority, and its enforcement power is unaffected.
The takeaway for your texting program
The smart read is optimism with discipline. Steidinger closes off one lane of liability in the Midwest; it does not make text marketing risk-free anywhere. The compliance fundamentals that protected you last week still protect you today:
Get consent — and document it. Obtain prior express written consent before sending marketing texts, and keep the records to prove it. Ensuring proper opt-in and enforceable consent is somethign I can help with.
Honor opt-outs instantly. Process "STOP" requests promptly and scrub against the Do-Not-Call Registry.
Mind the state map. Build your program to the strictest state you touch, not the friendliest.
Watch this space. A petition for rehearing or Supreme Court review is possible, and other circuits have similar cases in the pipeline.
Text marketing remains one of the highest-converting channels in e-commerce — and, done carelessly, one of the highest-risk. This ruling tilts the field a little more in your favor. The brands that benefit most will be the ones that treat it as breathing room to tighten their compliance, not an excuse to relax it.
If you'd like a review of how this decision affects your SMS program — including your consent flows and opt-out handling under Section 227(b) and the state statutes, I am happy to help. Contact me HERE.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The law in this area is developing and varies by jurisdiction; consult counsel about your specific situation. Attorney advertising.