September Keeps Delivering: Three More Courts Say Texts Aren’t Calls
Do you remember the 21st night of September?
TCPA lawyers may remember the entire month. Since the Seventh Circuit held in July that text messages are not “telephone calls” for purposes of the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call private right of action, three more federal district courts have followed its lead in September.
In Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, 182 F.4th 532 (7th Cir. 2026), the Seventh Circuit became the first federal appellate court to squarely hold that unwanted texts do not fall within the private right of action created by 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). The court focused on the ordinary meaning of “telephone call” when Congress enacted the TCPA in 1991 and the fact that Congress used the broader phrase “telephone call or message” elsewhere in the statute.
Now, Steidinger is gaining traction outside the Seventh Circuit.
Colorado appears to be the latest, and potentially the first in the Tenth Circuit. In Radvansky v. 1st Class Medical, No. 25-cv-03796-PAB-STV, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216656 (D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2026), the plaintiff alleged five unsolicited marketing texts to a number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The court found Steidinger persuasive, held that “telephone call” under § 227(c)(5) does not encompass texts, and dismissed the claim with prejudice. The Tenth Circuit has not addressed the issue, and this appears to be the first district court within the circuit to squarely do so.
Alabama followed the same path one week earlier. In Conrad v. Hart Consumer Products, No. 4:24-cv-307-CLM, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209507 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 16, 2026), the plaintiff alleged that Hart sent unwanted advertising texts to his DNC-registered number. The court followed Steidinger and granted Hart’s motion to dismiss. Importantly, it distinguished cases treating texts as calls under other TCPA provisions and ultimately dismissed the § 227(c)(5) complaint with prejudice.
North Carolina got there first in September. In Card v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., No. 1:26-CV-433, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201636 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2026), the court likewise found Steidinger persuasive. The Fourth Circuit has not decided the issue, but the court concluded that Congress’s use of “telephone call” in § 227(c)(5), while using broader language elsewhere, supported excluding texts from the private right of action.
For compliance, not much changes. For litigation, a lot might.
These decisions are not a green light to loosen texting compliance. The FCC’s rules, other provisions of the TCPA, and state telemarketing laws may independently regulate texts. For national texting campaigns, businesses should continue treating texts as calls for compliance purposes.
But if your company is defending a § 227(c)(5) claim based solely on texts, the analysis is increasingly forum-specific. Start with three questions:
Has the federal circuit addressed § 227(c)(5)?
If not, how have courts in that particular district treated texts?
Are those decisions pre- or post-Steidinger?
District court decisions are persuasive, not binding on other district judges. But with Steidinger now being adopted by courts in several other circuits, defendants facing text-only § 227(c)(5) claims have a growing body of authority supporting dismissal at the pleading stage.