For years, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) has been one of the most important federal laws protecting consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls, robocalls, prerecorded messages, and certain unwanted text messages.

But TCPA law is changing—and changing quickly.

Recent Supreme Court and federal appellate decisions are forcing courts to reconsider issues that once seemed relatively settled. Questions about whether text messages qualify for certain TCPA claims, what constitutes valid consent, whether the National Do Not Call Registry protects cell phones, and even whether caller-ID violations can support private claims are receiving renewed attention.

For consumers, however, one thing has not changed: unwanted telemarketing calls can still carry significant consequences for companies that violate the law.

The TCPA generally provides statutory damages of $500 per violation, which may be increased to as much as $1,500 for a willful or knowing violation.

Here is what consumers should know about the changing TCPA landscape in 2026.

What Is the TCPA?

Congress enacted the TCPA to address intrusive telephone marketing practices and protect consumer privacy.

Depending on the circumstances, TCPA protections may apply to practices involving:

• artificial or prerecorded voice calls;
• certain automated calls;
• telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry;
• repeated telephone solicitations;
• certain unwanted text messages; and
• telemarketers that fail to comply with identification and caller-ID requirements.

There are multiple provisions of the TCPA, however, and the requirements for a claim are not identical.

That distinction has become increasingly important.

The National Do Not Call Registry Remains Important

One of the most useful steps consumers can take is registering their personal telephone numbers with the National Do Not Call Registry.

The TCPA provides a private cause of action under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) when a person receives more than one telephone call within a 12-month period in violation of certain FCC regulations implementing the statute.

That does not mean every unwanted call to a registered number automatically results in a $500 claim. Exceptions and defenses can apply, and the nature of the call matters.

But DNC registration can be an important part of establishing a consumer’s rights.

Consumers should keep documentation showing when their number was registered, along with screenshots or records of subsequent telemarketing calls.

Does the Do Not Call Registry Protect Cell Phones?

This has become another area of renewed litigation.

Most consumers today do not maintain a traditional residential landline. Their cell phone is their personal and household telephone.

Extensive case law has treated cell phones registered on the DNC list as presumptively residential for purposes of the FCC’s Do Not Call Rule.

Recent decisions have continued to uphold the position that the DNC rule generally applies to cell phones used for residential purposes.

There can nevertheless be disputes about whether a particular number is really being used as a residential or business line.

That can become particularly important when someone uses the same cell phone for both personal and business purposes.

The Ninth Circuit, for example, has identified factors that can be relevant, including how the number is presented to the public, whether it is registered as a residential or business line, how extensively it is used for business, who pays the bill, and whether the number appears on the DNC Registry.

For most ordinary consumers using their cell phone as their personal household phone, however, DNC registration remains extremely important.

What About Unwanted Text Messages?

This is where TCPA law has become considerably more complicated.

For years, courts and the FCC generally treated text messages as calls for TCPA purposes.

The Second, Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have decisions recognizing text messages as “calls” under at least certain TCPA provisions.

But in July 2026, the Seventh Circuit issued a significant decision in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services.

The Seventh Circuit concluded that a text message is not a “telephone call” for purposes of the private cause of action contained in § 227(c)(5). That distinction could prevent certain DNC-based TCPA claims involving text messages within the Seventh Circuit.

That does not mean that the TCPA suddenly provides no protection against unwanted texts nationwide.

Other TCPA provisions remain relevant, and substantial authority outside the Seventh Circuit supports treating text messages as calls.

The important takeaway is that consumers and attorneys should no longer assume that an unwanted text and unwanted voice call will necessarily be analyzed identically in every jurisdiction.

Prerecorded and Artificial Voice Calls

Another important area of TCPA litigation involves calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice.

These are the familiar calls where a consumer answers and hears a recording rather than a live person.

Section 227(b) restricts certain non-emergency calls made using an automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice without the called party’s prior express consent.

This area should not be confused with autodialer litigation.

In Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, the Supreme Court significantly narrowed what equipment qualifies as an automatic telephone dialing system under the TCPA. That decision reduced the universe of cases that can succeed merely because a company allegedly used automated dialing technology.

But prerecorded and artificial-voice provisions remain independently important.

That is why consumers should preserve voicemails and recordings whenever possible.

The actual content of the call may become critical evidence.

“But You Consented”

Consent is one of the most common defenses in TCPA litigation.

A company may claim that the consumer checked a box on a website, submitted an online form, requested information, signed an electronic document, or otherwise agreed to receive telephone calls.

The law surrounding consent is itself evolving.

In March 2026, the Fifth Circuit decided Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of Texas, Inc., holding that the FCC regulation requiring written consent for certain telemarketing calls was invalid and that the statute required only “prior express consent,” which could include oral consent.

Importantly, Bradford is not binding nationwide.

Consent disputes therefore require careful examination of both the jurisdiction and the evidence.

Did You Really Check That Box?

A screenshot showing a website’s current terms does not necessarily prove that a particular consumer agreed to those terms months or years earlier.

Digital-consent evidence can be challenged for numerous reasons.

Was it actually the consumer who visited the website?

Did the consent language appear on the page at that time?

Was it clearly displayed?

Did clicking “Submit” reasonably communicate agreement to receive telemarketing calls?

Was the disclosure hidden behind an inconspicuous link?

Could the consumer’s information have been entered by someone else?

These questions matter.

The source material identifies several potential problems with digital consent, including identity theft, automated lead-generation practices, inaccurate historical website evidence, and allegedly forged electronic signatures.

Historical versions of webpages can sometimes even be compared through the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine to determine whether the disclosure produced in litigation actually appeared on the website at the relevant time.

The defendant generally bears the burden of establishing that the consumer actually consented.

A generic assertion that “our records show consent” should not necessarily end the inquiry.

Caller ID Violations May Matter Too

Consumers should also pay attention to what appears on their caller ID.

There is sometimes an assumption that consumers cannot pursue TCPA remedies involving caller-ID violations because the Truth in Caller ID Act does not itself provide a private right of action.

The issue is more nuanced.

FCC caller-ID regulations require telemarketers to transmit certain identifying information and prohibit blocking transmission of that information. Those regulations were adopted under the TCPA’s do-not-call authority.

Recent courts have recognized that TCPA § 227(c) can provide a private remedy for qualifying violations of those rules where the statutory requirements are otherwise satisfied.

This makes preserving screenshots of incoming calls potentially valuable.

Evidence Can Make or Break a TCPA Case

If you believe you are receiving unlawful calls or texts, don’t simply block the number and delete everything.

Preserve the evidence.

Keep:

• screenshots of call logs;
• screenshots of text messages;
• voicemails;
• recordings when lawfully obtained;
• dates and times of calls;
• caller-ID information;
• the numbers calling you;
• evidence of your DNC registration;
• copies of STOP or opt-out requests;
• emails relating to the calls; and
• information about any website where the company claims you provided consent.

If you answer the phone and ask the company to stop calling, make a contemporaneous note identifying the date, time, company, representative, and what you said.

TCPA litigation is often highly dependent upon details.

Twenty undocumented calls are far more difficult to prove than twenty calls supported by screenshots, voicemails, telephone records, and written notes.

The TCPA Is Changing—but Consumer Privacy Still Matters

A major reason TCPA law is evolving so rapidly is the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., which held that courts are no longer necessarily bound by FCC TCPA interpretations and may independently reconsider issues that previously appeared settled.

That has created both opportunities and uncertainty.

Companies are challenging longstanding TCPA interpretations. Courts are reconsidering statutory language. Different federal circuits may reach different conclusions.

As a result, TCPA cases require more careful analysis than ever.

But the underlying purpose of the law remains significant.

Consumers should not have to surrender control of their phones simply because they filled out an online form, requested a quote, or had their telephone number sold into the lead-generation ecosystem.

If your phone has become a constant source of unwanted telemarketing calls, robocalls, prerecorded messages, or texts, save the evidence before deleting or blocking anything.

Those annoying calls may be more than an inconvenience.

They may implicate rights protected by federal law.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. TCPA law is rapidly developing, and whether a particular call or text violates the law depends on the facts, jurisdiction, type of communication, consent, and other circumstances.