A few days ago, a federal judge in Colorado dismissed a consumer’s case over unwanted marketing texts sent to a number on the National Do Not Call Registry. The judge didn’t find that the texts were wanted or that they stopped when asked. The court held that under the do-not-call part of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a text message isn’t a “telephone call” at all.
That decision, Radvansky v. 1st Class Medical (D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2026), isn’t an outlier. By one defense-side count, about 17 federal district courts have now reached the same conclusion. In July, the Seventh Circuit became the first federal appeals court to say so. No appeals court has ruled the other way yet, and defense lawyers are already writing about the issue reaching the Supreme Court.
I’ve spent years representing people who are buried in calls and texts they never asked for. This trend worries me more than any TCPA development I’ve seen in a long time. Here’s why, and what you can still do about it.
What the Do Not Call Registry was supposed to do
Congress passed the TCPA in 1991 because Americans were fed up with telemarketers interrupting dinner. One of its central promises was simple: if you put your number on a do-not-call list, telemarketers must leave you alone. If they don’t, you can sue. Section 227(c)(5) gives a private right of action to anyone who receives more than one “telephone call” in a 12-month period in violation of the do-not-call rules.
For most of the time text messaging has existed, courts and the FCC treated a marketing text as a call for TCPA purposes. The Supreme Court described it that way in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez in 2016. In 2023 the FCC went further and formally codified that its do-not-call protections apply to texts. For consumers the rule was clear: registering your number protected you from telemarketing texts as well as voice calls.
That clarity is falling apart.
How we got here
Two things changed.
First, in 2025 the Supreme Court decided McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. It held that federal district courts aren’t bound by the FCC’s interpretations of the TCPA and must read the statute for themselves. On its own terms, that’s a technical ruling about agency deference. In practice, it invited judges to set aside decades of FCC guidance, including the FCC’s position that texts count.
Second, defendants started arguing that because “telephone call” in 1991 meant a voice conversation, and a text makes no sound, texts fall outside section 227(c)(5). In Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), a unanimous panel accepted that argument. It relied on dictionary definitions from the early 1990s describing a telephone call as communication by sound. It also distinguished Campbell-Ewald as involving a different part of the statute.
Since Steidinger, the district court decisions have come quickly. In September alone, courts in North Carolina (Card v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings), Alabama (Conrad v. Hart Consumer Products), and now Colorado dismissed do-not-call text claims on this reasoning. Several of those courts sit in circuits whose appeals courts haven’t addressed the question, so district judges are effectively choosing sides.
Why this reasoning troubles me
I understand the appeal of reading a statute by its words. But I think this line of cases gets the TCPA badly wrong, for four reasons.
It ignores why Congress passed the law. The TCPA was written to protect privacy and stop intrusive, unwanted telemarketing. Congress was worried about the unwanted message, not about sound waves. A marketing text that buzzes your phone at 9 p.m. intrudes in exactly the way Congress was trying to stop. Arguably it intrudes more, since most people now keep their phones within arm’s reach all day.
It freezes the law in 1991. Congress writes laws knowing technology will change. Nobody in 1991 was sending text messages, but everybody knew telemarketers would use whatever tools came next. Reading “telephone call” so narrowly that it excludes the main way telemarketers reach people today turns a consumer protection statute into a museum piece.
It creates an absurd gap. Under this reasoning, a telemarketer who calls your registered number twice can be sued, but one who sends you twenty texts about the same product cannot. That doesn’t match how anyone actually experiences their phone. My clients don’t care whether the message rang or buzzed. They care that they registered their number, did what the government told them to do, and are still being harassed.
It hands telemarketers a roadmap. Businesses respond to incentives. If texting a Do Not Call number carries no private liability in a growing number of courts, the predictable result is more marketing texts, not fewer. Some of the heaviest texters are the same lead generators and debt-relief, health-plan and home-buying operations that already ignore the rules. They are paying close attention to these rulings.
It’s also worth remembering the other side of the ledger. Courts have repeatedly recognized that receiving unwanted texts is a real injury. The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc in Drazen v. Pinto, found the harm closely related to the traditional privacy tort of intrusion upon seclusion. It’s hard to square “a text is a real privacy injury” with “a text isn’t a call the law protects you from.”
What the defense bar gets right, and what it’s hoping for
To be fair, the defense bar’s count is accurate. Right now the momentum is on their side. There’s a published appellate decision, a string of district court decisions, and no appeals court disagreeing. That’s exactly why they’re talking about the Supreme Court. They’d like a nationwide ruling that locks this reading in before the plaintiffs’ bar can build a split.
I’d like the Supreme Court to take this up too, but for the opposite reason. The Court’s own language in Campbell-Ewald, the statute’s purpose, and three decades of consistent treatment all point the other way. In the meantime, though, consumers in much of the country are living with the uncertainty.
Congress could fix this in one sentence
The simplest solution isn’t a court at all. Congress could amend the TCPA to say plainly that “telephone call” includes text messages and other electronic messages sent to a telephone number. That’s a one-line fix to a problem Congress never intended to create. If this issue matters to you, tell your representatives. Consumer protection rarely makes the news, but lawmakers do hear from constituents who are angry about spam texts, and most of them are.
What you can still do if you’re getting unwanted texts
This trend is serious, but it doesn’t mean you have no options.
- Keep your number on the Do Not Call Registry. Registration still protects you from telemarketing calls, and the FCC’s rules still say it covers texts. Not every court has adopted the new reasoning.
- Look at state law. Several states have their own telemarketing laws that expressly cover text messages and give consumers the right to sue, including Florida, Oklahoma and Texas. These claims don’t depend on how a federal court reads “telephone call.”
- Don’t overlook other federal claims. The Seventh Circuit said its ruling doesn’t affect section 227(b), which covers texts sent with an autodialer. Those claims are harder to bring than they used to be, but they still exist in the right cases.
- Reply STOP and keep proof. Screenshot every unwanted text, your STOP reply, and every message that arrives after it. Evidence of texts continuing after you opted out matters under federal and state law alike.
- Report it. File complaints with the FTC, the FCC and your state attorney general. Complaint volume shapes enforcement priorities.
- Talk to a lawyer before you give up. Whether you have a claim can depend on where you live, what the texts said, how they were sent, and whether you ever consented. A court’s ruling in Colorado or Illinois doesn’t decide your case.
The bottom line
The Do Not Call Registry works on a simple deal: you register, and telemarketers leave you alone. A growing number of courts are quietly cutting text messages out of that deal, even though texting is now the main way many telemarketers reach people. I think that’s wrong, and I’m hopeful that appeals courts, the Supreme Court or Congress will correct it.
Until then, consumers need to know their rights are narrower in some courts than they were a year ago. They also need to know they still have options. If you’re getting marketing texts you never asked for, especially after registering your number or replying STOP, Ginsburg Law Group can review your situation and help you figure out which claims still apply.
This post is for general information and is not legal advice. The law in this area is changing quickly and differs by state and federal circuit.
Sources:
