51
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
A third court has come out with a decision holding SMS messages ARE subject to the TCPA’s DNC rules post McKesson, and it looks like an ongoing split of authority is to be assured.
Backing up, the TCPA’s DNC rules prevent “calls” to numbers on the national DNCR without permission or an EBR.
Prior to this year courts routinely held “calls” included text messages because the FCC said so. But the current Supreme Court has thrown out the rule that district courts must obey the FCC– so they are free to decide the issue anew.
We have already seen a near-farcical split on the issue with two courts issuing competing decisions on the matter on the same day.
Since then the Chief Judge of the N.D.Fl. has issued an opinion concurring that SMS messages are not subject to the DNC rules while a split developed in Florida and we have been waiting for more data points.
Here’s the latest.
In Wilson v. Medvidi, Inc. 2025 WL 2856295 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2025) the court held SMS messages ARE “calls” for purposes of the TCPA’s DNC rules:
In short, nothing in the text, structure, or purpose of the TCPA suggests the distinction between written and oral communications that Defendant urges the Court to adopt. The Court concludes that a “telephone call” as used in 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) encompasses the types of text messages Plaintiff complains of.
Notably the court referred to Defendant’s argument as “tortured reasoning”:
According to Defendant, “by limiting this definition and intent to regulate text messages outlined in Section 64.1200(a), the FCC clearly indicated that, unless otherwise specified, a ‘call’ does not include a ‘text message’ or ‘SMS message.’ ” Mot. at 8. This tortured reasoning provides no basis to depart from the plain meaning of the statutory text as it has been understood by consumers, the FCC, and courts since the TCPA’s passage.
Eesh.
So one court says:
“[N]o ordinary person would think of a text message as a “telephone call.””
Another says:
“No basis to depart from the plain meaning of the statutory text as it has been understood by consumers, the FCC, and courts since the TCPA’s passage.”
Right.
This is what happens when you let courts make stuff up as they go along instead of having a reliable nationwide rule from the FCC.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2025 National Law Forum, LLC
Find Your Next Job !
A third court has come out with a decision holding SMS messages ARE subject to the TCPA’s DNC rules post McKesson, and it looks like an ongoing split of authority is to be assured.
Backing up, the TCPA’s DNC rules prevent “calls” to numbers on the national DNCR without permission or an EBR.
Prior to this year courts routinely held “calls” included text messages because the FCC said so. But the current Supreme Court has thrown out the rule that district courts must obey the FCC– so they are free to decide the issue anew.
We have already seen a near-farcical split on the issue with two courts issuing competing decisions on the matter on the same day.
Since then the Chief Judge of the N.D.Fl. has issued an opinion concurring that SMS messages are not subject to the DNC rules while a split developed in Florida and we have been waiting for more data points.
Here’s the latest.
In Wilson v. Medvidi, Inc. 2025 WL 2856295 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2025) the court held SMS messages ARE “calls” for purposes of the TCPA’s DNC rules:
In short, nothing in the text, structure, or purpose of the TCPA suggests the distinction between written and oral communications that Defendant urges the Court to adopt. The Court concludes that a “telephone call” as used in 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) encompasses the types of text messages Plaintiff complains of.
Notably the court referred to Defendant’s argument as “tortured reasoning”:
According to Defendant, “by limiting this definition and intent to regulate text messages outlined in Section 64.1200(a), the FCC clearly indicated that, unless otherwise specified, a ‘call’ does not include a ‘text message’ or ‘SMS message.’ ” Mot. at 8. This tortured reasoning provides no basis to depart from the plain meaning of the statutory text as it has been understood by consumers, the FCC, and courts since the TCPA’s passage.
Eesh.
So one court says:
“[N]o ordinary person would think of a text message as a “telephone call.””
Another says:
“No basis to depart from the plain meaning of the statutory text as it has been understood by consumers, the FCC, and courts since the TCPA’s passage.”
Right.
This is what happens when you let courts make stuff up as they go along instead of having a reliable nationwide rule from the FCC.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2025 National Law Forum, LLC