Seventh Circuit Rules Text Messages Are Not Telephone Calls Under the TCPA Do Not Call Provision

On July 14, 2026, a federal appeals court issued a decision that changes how one part of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act applies to text messages. In Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, the Seventh Circuit held that text messages are not “telephone calls” under Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, according to a July 21, 2026 client alert from Holland & Knight. The ruling directly affects consumers in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. It does not bind Florida courts. But it matters here, because a related case is pending in the appeals court that covers Florida, and because Florida consumers have a separate state law that already covers texts.

What the Court Decided

The case involved unwanted marketing text messages. The consumer argued that the texts violated the TCPA’s do-not-call provisions, according to the Holland & Knight alert. The Seventh Circuit disagreed. It held that a text message is not a “telephone call” under Section 227(c)(5), the provision that lets consumers sue over do-not-call violations.

Within the Seventh Circuit, consumers can no longer bring private do-not-call claims based on marketing texts under this provision, even if they are on the National Do Not Call Registry or have told the sender to stop, per the Holland & Knight alert. A Litigation Minute published by K&L Gates on August 5, 2026 notes that the decision was unanimous, was authored by Judge Kirsch, and eliminates private claims for unwanted marketing texts based on Do Not Call Registry violations or ignored “STOP” replies in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

Why the Court Ruled This Way

The Holland & Knight alert describes three reasons behind the decision. First, plain meaning. When Congress passed the TCPA in 1991, a “telephone call” meant a voice communication, not a written text. Second, statutory structure. Other parts of Section 227(c) use the broader term “telephone solicitation,” while Section 227(c)(5) uses only “telephone call.” The court read that difference as a sign that Congress meant narrower coverage in that provision. Third, a change in how courts approach the statute. After the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in McLaughlin v. McKesson, courts apply ordinary statutory interpretation instead of deferring to the Federal Communications Commission’s positions.

The ruling has limits. According to the Holland & Knight alert, liability under Section 227(b), which covers autodialers and prerecorded voice messages, is unaffected. The FCC’s own enforcement authority also remains intact. And state law claims may still provide remedies for consumers.

The Ruling Does Not Bind Florida, and a Related Case Is Pending Here

Florida sits in the Eleventh Circuit, not the Seventh. The Steidinger decision does not control what courts in Florida do. Other appeals courts have reached different results on texts, though under a different part of the statute. According to the K&L Gates Litigation Minute, the Ninth Circuit treated text messages as calls in Howard v. Republican National Committee in 2026, though under Section 227(b) rather than Section 227(c)(5). The First, Second, and Eleventh Circuits have found in earlier decisions that Section 227(b) applies to texts.

For Florida consumers, K&L Gates reports that the Eleventh Circuit is considering a related case, Radvansky v. Kendo Holdings. That case could shape how the question is answered in Florida. K&L Gates also notes that Supreme Court review remains possible, given the Court’s history of taking TCPA cases. The same publication reports that businesses are advised to keep honoring opt-outs because Section 227(b), FCC authority, and state mini-TCPA laws remain active enforcement pathways.

What Florida Consumers Should Know About the FTSA

Florida consumers do not rely on the federal TCPA alone. Florida has its own telemarketing law, the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, found at Section 501.059 of the Florida Statutes and sometimes called a “mini-TCPA,” according to a November 11, 2024 analysis by Morrison Foerster.

The FTSA explicitly covers both calls and text messages sent to Florida consumers, and it requires consent for auto-dialed communications, per the Morrison Foerster analysis. Florida residents can sue directly under the statute. Available damages are $500 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater, plus injunctive relief, and treble damages are possible for willful violations, according to Morrison Foerster.

There is a required step before suing over texts. Morrison Foerster explains that a 2023 amendment added a safe harbor: the consumer must first reply “STOP,” and the business then has 15 days to stop texting. For certain claims involving unsolicited text messages, a lawsuit over unwanted texts under the FTSA can only follow a “STOP” reply and the 15-day window. If the texts continue past that window, the FTSA may still offer a remedy even though the Seventh Circuit’s reading of the federal statute does not.

What Should You Do If You Keep Receiving Unwanted Texts in Florida?

1. Save the text messages. Don’t delete the message thread.
2. Take screenshots showing the sender, dates, times, and content.
3. Reply STOP if appropriate and keep a screenshot of the reply.
4. Document messages received afterward, particularly the dates.
5. Keep records showing your number’s Do Not Call Registry status, if applicable.
6. Consider speaking with a consumer protection attorney about whether the TCPA, FTSA, or another law applies.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you are dealing with unwanted telemarketing calls or texts, contact Ethan Babb Law Firm at 321-529-2222 or intake@babblaw.com.