Whether a text message counts as a "call" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) is one of the most contested questions in consumer-messaging law. On October 21, 2026, a federal court in the Eastern District of California held that SMS messages are calls (opens in a new tab) in Lewis v. Tenth Hall, the latest in a line of California decisions. A federal appeals court elsewhere has gone the other way on one part of the statute.
So the answer to "are text messages calls under the TCPA" depends on where you are sued and which TCPA provision is at issue. For senders, that uncertainty is the point.
Key takeaways
- Courts disagree on whether texts are "calls," and no Supreme Court ruling settles it yet.
- The Seventh Circuit held in July 2026 that texts are not "telephone calls" under the Do Not Call private right of action. The Ninth Circuit has treated texts as calls under a different provision.
- Defendants can win this argument in some courts, but other courts reject it, and class-action settlements are still happening.
- The ruling that helps in one circuit does not help with the FCC, state laws, or other TCPA claims.
- The safer assumption is that your texts will be treated as calls, and to build consent, opt-out, and timing practices accordingly.
Why the "texts are calls" question is open
The TCPA was enacted in 1991, before text messaging existed. The statute regulates "calls" and "telephone solicitations" but does not directly say whether a text is a call. For years, courts followed the FCC's view that texts are calls.
That changed in 2025. In McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson (opens in a new tab), the Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not stop district courts in enforcement proceedings from independently assessing whether an FCC interpretation of the TCPA is correct. Courts are not bound by the FCC's reading and should interpret the statute under ordinary principles, giving the agency appropriate respect.
Defense lawyers took notice. If the FCC's reading no longer binds courts, a defendant can argue the plain meaning of "call" does not include a text. That argument is now showing up in TCPA text message class actions across the country.
What the courts are saying
Courts that say texts are calls
The Ninth Circuit has held that texts are calls under Section 227(b), the provision covering autodialed and prerecorded messages. According to the National Law Review, courts across California and the Ninth Circuit have repeatedly applied that reasoning, and the Lewis court reached the same result for Section 227(c), the Do Not Call provisions.
The Ninth Circuit's approach has spread to related claims. In December 2025, a federal court in the Central District of California refused to dismiss a class action (opens in a new tab) over texts allegedly sent outside the TCPA's marketing time limits in Dilanyan v. Hugo Boss Fashions. According to TCPAWorld, the court held the Ninth Circuit's Satterfield decision was broad enough to cover that claim, and it certified the issue for appellate review.
Courts that say texts are not calls
On July 14, 2026, the Seventh Circuit held in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that Section 227(c)(5), the Do Not Call private right of action, does not cover text messages because a text is not a "telephone call." According to Kirkland & Ellis (opens in a new tab), the panel affirmed dismissal of a putative class action, relying on the ordinary 1991 meaning of the term and on Congress's use of the broader phrase "telephone solicitation" elsewhere in the statute.
Kirkland describes it as the first federal appellate ruling on the question after McLaughlin, and says it creates a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit that raises the likelihood of Supreme Court review. Honigman, another law firm, cautions that the Ninth Circuit's contrary decision in Howard v. Republican National Committee addressed a different TCPA subsection and is arguably distinguishable (opens in a new tab).
A TCPAWorld commentator describes recent cases outside the Ninth Circuit as trending toward "SMS are not calls," while predicting that jurisdictions that have ruled against the argument are likely to stay that way pending appellate review.
What "prevailing view" really means
Which view is "prevailing" depends on the circuit and the provision. The text of Section 227(c) matters here. According to the National Law Review, it defines "telephone solicitations" to include messages and calls, but its private right of action covers only "telephone calls," which is narrower than the bare word "call" in Section 227(b). That wording difference is why courts can reasonably split.
Why a legal defense is a risky plan
It is tempting to read the Steidinger ruling and conclude that marketing texts are now low-risk. Both Kirkland and Honigman warn against that reading. As they describe it:
- Steidinger covers only the Section 227(c)(5) private right of action. Section 227(b) autodialer claims are unaffected.
- FCC regulation and enforcement are unaffected.
- State "mini-TCPA" laws, such as the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, can independently restrict marketing texts.
There is also a practical problem. Even if the argument is strong in one court, you cannot always choose where you are sued. A federal magistrate judge in the Southern District of New York refused to pause discovery (opens in a new tab) in a Do Not Call SMS class action on October 7, 2026, even though the defendant cited an "overwhelming consensus" outside the circuit that texts are not covered. The court noted that at least one court in its district had held otherwise. Winning the argument eventually can still mean paying to litigate in the meantime.
The cost of getting it wrong
Exposure adds up quickly. According to Kirkland, Section 227(c)(5) allows statutory damages of up to $500 per violation, which a court may treble to $1,500 for willful conduct, and in class actions these per-message damages aggregate fast. That is the core of TCPA statutory damages per text: a program that sends thousands of messages to the wrong recipients can create very large numbers on paper.
Settlements show this is not hypothetical. Teleflora agreed to pay $6 million to settle a Do Not Call SMS class action, according to a National Law Review commentary (opens in a new tab). The article puts that at $251 per class member, based on an estimated class of about 23,844 phone numbers. The class covers people on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days who received at least two promotional texts within 12 months without having given Teleflora their number.
Two caveats apply. The commentary is an opinion piece from a defense firm arguing the settlement was a mistake, since several courts in the district had ruled for defendants on related issues. It also notes a possible defense where a company has a written Do Not Call policy and training. And settlement-tracking sites say the $6 million is a ceiling and $251 a maximum per claim (opens in a new tab) before fees and costs. They report a final approval hearing on November 25, 2026, with only preliminary approval so far. Actual payouts may be lower, and the outcome is not final.
The lesson holds either way: a company with a strong legal argument still chose to settle rather than test it.
What this means for high-volume SMS senders
If you send at scale, treat TCPA compliance for high-volume texting as an operating discipline, not a legal bet. The practical assumption is that your texts are covered, so build around the things plaintiffs actually look for:
- Consent: know where each number came from, and keep a record you can produce.
- Do Not Call scrubbing: check lists before sending, and keep a written Do Not Call policy and training, since the Teleflora commentary points to those as a possible defense.
- Opt-outs: honor STOP requests automatically and quickly.
- Timing: send within permitted hours for each recipient's timezone.
- List hygiene: remove duplicates and bad numbers so you are not texting the wrong people repeatedly.
Several of these also overlap with state laws that expressly cover texts, so they protect you even if a federal court accepts the "not a call" argument. Rules and thresholds vary, so confirm specifics with counsel.
What to do now
- Audit your consent records. Confirm you can show when and how each recipient opted in.
- Scrub against Do Not Call lists before every campaign, not only at import.
- Check your quiet-hours settings against each recipient's local timezone.
- Test your STOP handling end to end, including variations in how people reply.
- Write down your Do Not Call policy and train the people who run campaigns.
- Review state laws that apply where your recipients live, with counsel.
- Do not rely on the "texts are not calls" argument as your main protection, and ask counsel how it would apply to your exposure if at all.
- Watch for appellate developments, including any move toward Supreme Court review of the split.
Frequently asked questions
Are text messages calls under the TCPA?
It depends on the court and the provision. The Ninth Circuit has held that texts are calls under Section 227(b), and courts in California have applied that reasoning more broadly. The Seventh Circuit held in July 2026 that texts are not "telephone calls" under the Do Not Call private right of action. The Supreme Court has not resolved the question.
Does the Seventh Circuit ruling mean I can text people on the Do Not Call list?
No. According to law-firm alerts, the ruling covers only the Section 227(c)(5) private right of action in that circuit. It does not affect autodialer claims under Section 227(b), FCC regulation and enforcement, or state laws that independently restrict marketing texts. Anyone planning around it should talk to counsel first.
How much can a TCPA text message class action cost?
Kirkland reports that Section 227(c)(5) allows up to $500 per violation, trebled to $1,500 for willful conduct, and that these amounts add up in class actions. Teleflora's proposed $6 million settlement, covering about 23,844 phone numbers, shows how large these cases can get. Settlement amounts depend on the specific facts and are not final until approved by a court.
Build for the stricter reading
The safest planning assumption is that a text is a call. Courts that disagree may help you in some lawsuits, but they will not help in all of them, and they do nothing about FCC rules or state laws. Flowtext handles automatic STOP/opt-out processing, quiet hours by recipient timezone, and list scrubbing so teams do not have to rely on a legal argument. See how it works on the Flowtext compliance page, or look at the platform features.
This post is general information, not legal advice. Consult counsel about your own messaging programs.
Tags
- TCPA
- SMS compliance
- class actions
- Do Not Call
- high-volume texting