The Matrix

On July 14, 2026, the Seventh Circuit held in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398, that consumers cannot sue under one specific TCPA provision—the Do-Not-Call private right of action, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) (“DNC”)—based solely on receiving unwanted text messages. The court reasoned that when Congress wrote “telephone call” in that statute in 1991, it meant voice calls, not texts.

This is good news for companies facing DNC lawsuits based on text messages within Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin (the Seventh Circuit’s territory). Outside the Seventh Circuit, the question whether texts constitute “calls” under § 227(c)(5) largely remains open—the Supreme Court has not resolved it, and courts are reaching different conclusions.

Why This Ruling Happened Now

For decades, the FCC said text messages count as “calls” under the TCPA, and courts followed that guidance. The Supreme Court even appeared to endorse the idea in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016), stating a text “qualifies as a ‘call.’” Although dicta, this statement was widely treated as settled law.

That changed when the Supreme Court eliminated judicial deference to agency interpretations in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025). Courts can no longer simply defer to the FCC’s position. They must independently decide what “telephone call” means in the statute—and they’re reaching different conclusions.

What the Seventh Circuit Decided

The court looked at the ordinary meaning of “telephone call” when the TCPA was enacted in 1991. Using dictionary definitions from that era, it concluded a “telephone” was “an instrument for reproducing sounds at a distance” and a “call” meant voice communication. Text messages don’t reproduce sounds—so they aren’t “telephone calls.”

The court also noted that Congress used broader language (“telephone solicitation,” defined to include calls or messages) elsewhere in the same statute, but chose the narrower term “telephone call” for the private lawsuit provision. That deliberate word choice confirmed texts were excluded from the private right of action.

What This Means for Your Business

Reduced litigation risk in the Seventh Circuit. If your company faces (or could face) DNC lawsuits in Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin based solely on marketing texts, this decision provides a strong basis to seek dismissal of § 227(c)(5) claims. Pending cases should be evaluated immediately.

Citable persuasive authority nationwide. Even outside the Seventh Circuit, Steidinger is now the first federal appellate decision to hold that texts are not “calls” under § 227(c)(5). While some district courts have reached the opposite conclusion, the Supreme Court has never squarely decided the question, and the issue remains actively contested. The Ninth Circuit’s contrary reasoning in Howard v. Republican National Committee, 164 F.4th 1119 (9th Cir. 2026), addressed a different TCPA subsection and arguably is distinguishable.

What This Does Not Change

Companies still face compliance obligations and potential litigation risk from:

• TCPA § 227(b) claims—which cover texts sent using an autodialer or prerecorded/artificial voice technology. The effect of Steidinger will be seen moving forward.
• FCC regulations—the FCC’s authority to extend DNC protections to text messages under §§ 227(c)(1)-(4) remains intact. Regulatory enforcement is unaffected.
• State laws—many states have their own telephone solicitation or “mini-TCPA” statutes (like the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act) that independently restrict marketing texts.
• An evolving legal landscape—courts are split, and no Supreme Court decision resolves whether texts are “calls” under § 227(c)(5). Adverse lower-court rulings in other circuits are not the final word; we are actively challenging them and expect this area of law to continue developing in defendants’ favor.

We will continue to monitor developments in this area and update you as additional courts weigh in or if the Supreme Court takes up the issue.