46
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
Need to update the map again!
Just yesterday I reported on a decision suggested the TCPA DNC rules do not apply to cell phones at all.
Well today we have a more traditional ruling concluding SMS messages are not “telephone calls” for 229(c) purposes– spreading this holding to ne territory in Alabama for the first time.
In Conrad v. Hart Consumer Products, 2026 WL 2741623 (N.D. Al. Sept. 16, 2026) the court concluded SMS messages are not calls for purposes of the TCPA’s DNC private right of action.
To get there the Court first had to leap a major 11th Cir. hurdle– the Drazen case seemingly held that texts are calls but the court correctly limited that holding as deciding only that receipt of a text can cause Article III standing and not necessarily statutory standing. That’s a bit of an angels dancing on the head of a pin situation– but I understand the logic and appreciate the holding.
More substantively for the rest of us the court goes on to determine Congress did not intend to include SMS messaging in the definition of “telephone call.” Once again the court looked at the ordinary meaning of words as used in 1991 and concluded the phrase referred to the transmission of sound over distances: “Thus, in 1991,
a ‘telephone call’ referred to communication via sound.”
That analysis alone was dispositive but the court went on to apply my favorite reasoning: The TCPA defines telephone solicitation to include “telephone call or message” yet the private right of action only allows suit when a person has received two or more “telephone calls.” Period. No mention of the word “message.” So plainly receipt of SMS does not provide a private right of action. The Conrad court summed this up beautifully and succinctly in its ruling and it got it correct in my view.
In the end the court concludes: “Until Congress broadens § 227(c)(5)’s right of action to the receipt of “text messages” or all “text solicitations,” Conrad has no personal right of action in this court.”
That begs the question–will Congress act here? We know the NCLC has asked for a bill expanding the TCPA. I suspect those calls will turn to howls soon enough.
In the meantime be sure to tune in in TWO SHORT HOURS for our discussion of the MASSIVE changes the FCC just brought to the TCPA’s revocation rules and the NEW NPRM that may change every message you send.
See you then.
Chat soon!
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 !
Need to update the map again!
Just yesterday I reported on a decision suggested the TCPA DNC rules do not apply to cell phones at all.
Well today we have a more traditional ruling concluding SMS messages are not “telephone calls” for 229(c) purposes– spreading this holding to ne territory in Alabama for the first time.
In Conrad v. Hart Consumer Products, 2026 WL 2741623 (N.D. Al. Sept. 16, 2026) the court concluded SMS messages are not calls for purposes of the TCPA’s DNC private right of action.
To get there the Court first had to leap a major 11th Cir. hurdle– the Drazen case seemingly held that texts are calls but the court correctly limited that holding as deciding only that receipt of a text can cause Article III standing and not necessarily statutory standing. That’s a bit of an angels dancing on the head of a pin situation– but I understand the logic and appreciate the holding.
More substantively for the rest of us the court goes on to determine Congress did not intend to include SMS messaging in the definition of “telephone call.” Once again the court looked at the ordinary meaning of words as used in 1991 and concluded the phrase referred to the transmission of sound over distances: “Thus, in 1991,
a ‘telephone call’ referred to communication via sound.”
That analysis alone was dispositive but the court went on to apply my favorite reasoning: The TCPA defines telephone solicitation to include “telephone call or message” yet the private right of action only allows suit when a person has received two or more “telephone calls.” Period. No mention of the word “message.” So plainly receipt of SMS does not provide a private right of action. The Conrad court summed this up beautifully and succinctly in its ruling and it got it correct in my view.
In the end the court concludes: “Until Congress broadens § 227(c)(5)’s right of action to the receipt of “text messages” or all “text solicitations,” Conrad has no personal right of action in this court.”
That begs the question–will Congress act here? We know the NCLC has asked for a bill expanding the TCPA. I suspect those calls will turn to howls soon enough.
In the meantime be sure to tune in in TWO SHORT HOURS for our discussion of the MASSIVE changes the FCC just brought to the TCPA’s revocation rules and the NEW NPRM that may change every message you send.
See you then.
Chat soon!
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