47
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
On July 14, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that consumers cannot sue businesses for unwanted marketing text messages under a key provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is one of the most significant TCPA decisions in years.
But don’t ramp up your SMS campaigns just yet. This ruling doesn’t give anyone free rein to send marketing texts, and the landscape is more complex than it may appear.
Blackstone Medical Services (Blackstone) sent marketing texts to consumers who had already asked the company to stop — some by replying “STOP,” others by adding themselves to the National Do-Not-Call Registry. A class of consumers sued under Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, which creates a private right of action for individuals to file suit when they receive more than one unwanted “telephone call” from the same company in a 12-month period.
In response to the class action complaint, Blackstone moved to dismiss the TCPA claims, arguing that Section 227(c)(5) only creates a private right of action for phone calls, not text messages. Judge Hawley of the Central District of Illinois agreed, dismissing the TCPA claim and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
On appeal to the Seventh Circuit, the question before the court was: Is a text message a “telephone call” under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit said no. When Congress passed the TCPA in 1991, a “telephone call” meant using a phone to communicate by sound. Because text messages — which did not exist until 1992 — do not reproduce sound, they do not fit the definition.
The court also noted something important in how the statute is written: Congress used the broader phrase “telephone solicitation” (which includes both calls and messages) in other parts of the same section of the TCPA but chose the narrower phrase “telephone call” for Section 227(c)(5). That distinction matters, and the court read it as deliberate.
If your business advertises to consumers in Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin — the three states covered by the Seventh Circuit — this decision significantly reduces your exposure to class action lawsuits over non-automated marketing texts filed under Section 227(c)(5).
However, the Steidinger ruling is narrow in several important ways:
There are several practice takeaways from the Steidinger decision that your business should consider before changing its SMS messaging practices:
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 ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC
Find Your Next Job !
On July 14, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that consumers cannot sue businesses for unwanted marketing text messages under a key provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is one of the most significant TCPA decisions in years.
But don’t ramp up your SMS campaigns just yet. This ruling doesn’t give anyone free rein to send marketing texts, and the landscape is more complex than it may appear.
Blackstone Medical Services (Blackstone) sent marketing texts to consumers who had already asked the company to stop — some by replying “STOP,” others by adding themselves to the National Do-Not-Call Registry. A class of consumers sued under Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, which creates a private right of action for individuals to file suit when they receive more than one unwanted “telephone call” from the same company in a 12-month period.
In response to the class action complaint, Blackstone moved to dismiss the TCPA claims, arguing that Section 227(c)(5) only creates a private right of action for phone calls, not text messages. Judge Hawley of the Central District of Illinois agreed, dismissing the TCPA claim and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
On appeal to the Seventh Circuit, the question before the court was: Is a text message a “telephone call” under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit said no. When Congress passed the TCPA in 1991, a “telephone call” meant using a phone to communicate by sound. Because text messages — which did not exist until 1992 — do not reproduce sound, they do not fit the definition.
The court also noted something important in how the statute is written: Congress used the broader phrase “telephone solicitation” (which includes both calls and messages) in other parts of the same section of the TCPA but chose the narrower phrase “telephone call” for Section 227(c)(5). That distinction matters, and the court read it as deliberate.
If your business advertises to consumers in Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin — the three states covered by the Seventh Circuit — this decision significantly reduces your exposure to class action lawsuits over non-automated marketing texts filed under Section 227(c)(5).
However, the Steidinger ruling is narrow in several important ways:
There are several practice takeaways from the Steidinger decision that your business should consider before changing its SMS messaging practices:
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 ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC