Just in time for Halloween, the TCPA’s ongoing text message debate has delivered three unfavorable decisions for defendants. As we covered in July, A Major TCPA Defense Win: Seventh Circuit Rejects Do-Not-Call Text Claims, the Seventh Circuit became the first federal appellate court to hold that text messages are not “telephone calls” under the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call (DNC) private right of action in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, 182 F.4th 532 (7th Cir. 2026). District courts in Colorado, Alabama, and North Carolina subsequently followed its lead.
But October had a few tricks up its sleeve.
Three states, three decisions, and not a treat in sight for TCPA defendants. Federal courts in California, Pennsylvania, and Texas rejected the argument that text messages fall outside 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). The split comes down to a few words in the TCPA. Although the statute defines “telephone solicitation” to include calls and messages, the provision allowing consumers to sue refers only to “telephone calls.” Courts following the Seventh Circuit ruling view that distinction as intentional, while other courts rely on broader statutory interpretations and existing precedent to include texts.
California wasn’t persuaded to follow the Seventh Circuit’s lead. In Lewis v. Tenth Hall, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-1810 AC, 2026 LX 602217 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2026), the plaintiff alleged receiving unsolicited marketing texts advertising real estate-related goods or services. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, relying on Ninth Circuit precedent treating texts as calls under other TCPA provisions. It concluded that the same reasoning applied to § 227(c)(5) and declined to follow Steidinger.
Pennsylvania wasn't convinced either. In Dovberg v. Haller Enters., No. 5:26-cv-4286, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 241243 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2026), the plaintiff alleged receiving two unsolicited marketing texts offering referral rewards. The court denied the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that texts qualify as telephone calls under the DNC provisions. It relied on the statutory language and three earlier decisions from the same district reaching that conclusion.
Texas made it three for three. In Feliciano v. Red McCombs Hyundai Nw. GP, L.L.C., No. SA-26-CV-00200-JKP, 2026 LX 603301 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2026), the court denied a car dealership’s motion for judgment on the pleadings concerning allegedly unsolicited marketing texts sent to a DNC-registered cell phone. Rather than following Steidinger, the court relied on the district court authority in Texas and elsewhere in the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit itself has not yet decided the issue.
The real trick? Knowing how this impacts you.
For compliance, nothing changes. These decisions address whether consumers can bring private lawsuits under one provision of the TCPA, not the broader rules governing marketing texts. Other TCPA provisions, FCC regulations, and state telemarketing laws still apply. Companies should continue treating texts as calls for compliance purposes, regardless of where they operate.
For litigation, however, jurisdiction matters. Whether a text-only DNC claim survives may depend on where the case is filed and precedent in that court.