District courts in the Eleventh Circuit are increasingly finding that the private right of action for violation of the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call provisions does not apply to text messages. More recently, three judges in that Circuit dismissed claims under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), holding that the statute’s reference to “telephone calls” does not extend to text messages. See Radvansky v. Kendo Holdings, Inc., 23-0214, Dkt. 57 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 12, 2026) (May, C.J.) (entering judgment on the pleadings; this decision is now on appeal before the Eleventh Circuit); Radvansky v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., 2026 WL 456919, at *3-5 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 17, 2026) (Thrash, J.) (granting motion to dismiss); Lopresti v. Nouveau Essentials Mktg. LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39599, at *6-13 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2026) (Lammens, M.J.) (recommendation to enter judgment on the pleadings). The Lopresti court also dismissed a claim under Section 227(b), which restricts the use of automated telephone equipment, for the same reason. Lopresti, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39599, at *11-12.
These decisions are consistent with several earlier decisions in the Eleventh Circuit and one in the Central District of Illinois. See McGonigle v. Pure Green Franchise Corp., 2026 WL 111338 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2026) (Singhal, J.) (granting motion to stay discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss); El Sayed v. Naturopathica Holistic Health, Inc., 2025 WL 2997759, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2025) (Merryday, J.) (granting motion to dismiss); Davis v. CVS Pharm., Inc., 797 F.Supp.3d 1270, 1272 (N.D. Fla. 2025) (Winsor, C.J.) (granting motion to dismiss); see also Jones v. Blackstone Med. Servs., LLC, 792 F.Supp.3d 894 (C.D. Ill. 2025) (Hawley, J.) (granting motion to dismiss; this decision is now on appeal before the Seventh Circuit).
A few contrary decisions exist in the Eleventh Circuit, mainly from Judge Dimitrouleas in the Southern District of Florida. Even so, Judge Dimitrouleas acknowledged that, if “interpreting the TCPA on a blank slate under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation,” he would “tend to agree with the district courts who have determined that a call does not include a text message.” See Piet v. Off. Depot, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230981, at *5 n.2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2025) (Dimitrouleas, J.); Glasel v. Off. Depot, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231053, at *6 n.2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2025) (Dimitrouleas, J.); McGonigle v. Off. Depot, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231061, at *6 n.2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2025) (Dimitrouleas, J.).
This trend has accelerated following Supreme Court decisions in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025), and Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), which held that courts should interpret the TCPA themselves rather than simply deferring to FCC guidance. See Radvansky, 2026 WL 456919, at *3 (“This sea change in the legal landscape has left district courts to decide, with fresh eyes, whether § 227(c)(5)’s reference to ‘telephone call[s]’ also encompasses text messages.”).
The window for plaintiff to appeal the Radvansky v. 1-800-Flowers.com decision to the Eleventh Circuit is still open, and the Lopresti recommendation awaits adoption by the district judge. Meanwhile, the Radvansky v. Kendo Holdings decision is on appeal before the Eleventh Circuit, and the Jones decision from the Central District of Illinois is fully briefed before the Seventh Circuit (see Steidinger, et al. v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir.)). Thus, it remains to be seen whether rulings from these appellate courts, which could influence TCPA litigation nationwide, will provide additional clarity, or more ambiguity, to this new era. It seems likely that some defendants in similar cases will seek stays pending the outcome of these appeals.
