Topic: Class Actions

Seventh Circuit Finds that Private Right of Action for Do-Not-Call Violations Does Not Apply to Text Messages

The Seventh Circuit has become the first federal circuit court of appeals to address whether the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call provision, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), creates a private right of action for unwanted text messages, holding that it does not and that the provision’s private right of action is limited to phone calls. Steidinger v. Blackstone Med. Servs., No. 25-2398, 2026 WL 2028517 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026) (Kirsch, J.). Our coverage of the lower court decision it affirmed can be found here.

The court based its decision on “the ordinary public meaning of telephone call at the time of the TCPA’s enactment” and “the context provided by surrounding provisions of § 227.” Id. at *1.  Regarding the statute’s ordinary public meaning, the court explained that “telephone call” could not have covered text messages in 1991 — when the TCPA was enacted — because the first text message was not sent until the following year. Id. at *2. Further, in 1991, “telephone call” referred to communication via sound. Because text messages do not reproduce sounds, they do not qualify as a new application of that term. Id.

Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Finds that Private Right of Action for Do-Not-Call Violations Does Not Apply to Text Messages”

Southern District of Ohio Finds No Private Right of Action for Caller ID Violations

Among its various restrictions, the TCPA makes it unlawful “to cause any caller identification service to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1). A single violation of this provision may result in a civil penalty of up to $10,000 — or up to $30,000 “for each day of a continuing violation.” Id. § 227(e)(5). And although the statute expressly provides for enforcement by federal or state regulators, individual consumers have attempted to bring claims under the TCPA for violations of this provision. Recently, the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio determined that there is no private right of action under section 227(e)(1). See McComb v. Joel Bray Lackey, 2026 WL 1837653 (S.D. Ohio June 25, 2026).

The court concluded that “while certain subsections of § 227 contain explicit private rights of action . . . subsection § 227(e) does not.” Id. at *6. Indeed, this conclusion is in good company; several district courts across the country have similarly found that section 227(e) does not provide a private right of action. See, e.g., Cunningham v. Creative Edge Mrktg., LLC, 2021 WL 3085415 (E.D. Tex. June 16, 2021); McDermet v. John C. Heath, Attorney at Law, PLLC, 2018 WL 627371 (D. Mass. Jan. 30, 2018); Free Conferencing Corp. v. Comcast Corp., 2016 WL 7637664 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2016); Clark v. Avatar Tech. Phl, Inc., 2014 WL 1342033 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2014).

Continue reading “Southern District of Ohio Finds No Private Right of Action for Caller ID Violations”

Ohio Federal Court Rules TCPA’s DNC Provision Doesn’t Permit Text Message Lawsuits

A federal judge in the Northern District of Ohio recently held that text messages are not subject to the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call provision because they are not “calls” within the meaning of the statute. Stockdale v. Skymount Prop. Grp., LLC, et al., 2026 WL 591842 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 3, 2026).

In Stockdale, Plaintiff alleged that she received text messages from Defendants for several years after she placed her phone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint did not state a cognizable claim under the TCPA because the plain language of Section 227(c)(5) is limited to “telephone calls” and does not include text messages.

Continue reading “Ohio Federal Court Rules TCPA’s DNC Provision Doesn’t Permit Text Message Lawsuits”

Courts in Eleventh Circuit Find No Private Right of Action Under 227(c) for Texts

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).

Continue reading “Courts in Eleventh Circuit Find No Private Right of Action Under 227(c) for Texts”

Florida Federal Court Stays Discovery Pending Decision on Whether Texts Qualify as Calls Under TCPA

A judge in the Southern District of Florida recently granted a defendant’s motion to stay discovery in a case involving alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), pending resolution of the defendant’s motion to dismiss arguing that a text is not a “call” within the meaning of the TCPA. See McGonigle v. Pure Green Franchise Corp., 2026 WL 111338 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2026).

The court explained that “resolv[ing] the issue of whether § 227(c) [of the TCPA] includes a cause of action for text messages by exercising our ‘special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities’” is “a question of law that does not require discovery.” Id. at *2.

Continue reading “Florida Federal Court Stays Discovery Pending Decision on Whether Texts Qualify as Calls Under TCPA”

Another Florida Federal Court Finds Do-Not-Call Regulation Inapplicable to Text Messages

A judge in the Middle District of Florida recently dismissed Do-Not-Call claims under the TCPA, holding that “a text message is not a telephone call.” El Sayed v. Naturopathica Holistic Health, Inc., 2025 WL 2997759, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2025).

The court explained that “it is only th[r]ough the rulemaking authority of the FCC that the voice call provisions of the TCPA have been extended to text messages. … However, a District Court is not bound by the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA.” Id. at 1.

Continue reading “Another Florida Federal Court Finds Do-Not-Call Regulation Inapplicable to Text Messages”

Second Court Rules Do-Not-Call Regulation Does Not Apply to Text Messages

A Florida federal court recently dismissed Do-Not-Call claims, holding that “a text message is not a ‘telephone call.’” Davis v. CVS Pharm., Inc., No. 24-0477, 2025 WL 2491195 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2025).

In Davis, the plaintiff alleged that CVS sent him unwanted text messages in violation of regulations prohibiting calls to individuals registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2).

Continue reading “Second Court Rules Do-Not-Call Regulation Does Not Apply to Text Messages”

McLaughlin and Loper Bright Lead to Decision That TCPA Does Not Apply to Texts

A federal court recently dismissed Do-Not-Call claims after finding that, “based on a plain reading of the TCPA and its implementing regulations,” 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) “does not apply to text messages.” Jones v. Blackstone Med. Servs., LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01074, 2025 WL 2042764 (C.D. Ill. July 21, 2025).

In Jones, the plaintiffs alleged that they had received telemarketing texts about the defendant’s home sleep tests, despite their having placed their numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and/or asking to be placed on the defendant’s Do-Not Call list. (Although they also made passing references to “calls” as well as “texts,” the court found that those allegations were neither well pleaded nor the crux of the claim.) They filed suit under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), which concerns violations of Do-Not-Call rules.

Continue reading “McLaughlin and Loper Bright Lead to Decision That TCPA Does Not Apply to Texts”

FCC Releases Declaratory Ruling Addressing the TCPA Compliance Status of Ringless Voicemails

On November 21, 2022, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Declaratory Ruling and Order (Declaratory Ruling), in which it determined that “ringless voicemail” to wireless phones requires prior consumer consent to transmit because it is a “call” made using an artificial or prerecorded voice and thus is covered under section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Declaratory Ruling was issued even though the petitioner, All About the Message, LLC (AATM) had requested withdrawal of its 2017 Petition for Declaratory Ruling seeking to have the FCC declare that ringless voicemail, based on the technology and the lack of direct charge to wireless consumers, is not subject to the TCPA and the agency’s implementing rules. Addressing AATM’s withdrawal request, the FCC stated that it believed a ruling was necessary to resolve a controversy and remove uncertainty about the status of ringless voicemail under the TCPA.

Codified in section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, the TCPA addresses certain practices considered to be an invasion of consumer privacy or, in some instances, a risk to public safety. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) prohibits making any non-emergency call using an automatic telephone dialing system (autodialer) or an artificial or prerecorded voice to a wireless telephone number without the prior express consent of the called party. AATM sought an FCC ruling that delivery of a voicemail message directly to a consumer’s cell phone voicemail is not covered by the TCPA. AATM relied on several arguments, but primarily claimed that its ringless voicemail message was not a “call” because its proprietary software creates a landline-to-landline session directly to the telephone company’s voicemail server without charge to the subscriber and is not shown as a call on any consumer bill.

Continue reading “FCC Releases Declaratory Ruling Addressing the TCPA Compliance Status of Ringless Voicemails”