46
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
For those of you following the “are text messages calls” debate in TCPAWorld we have another data point for you.
In Lewis v. Tenth Hall, 2026 WL 3152283 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2026) the court held SMS messages ARE calls following well-tread authority in the district.
As you can see from our map (above) courts throughout California and the entire 9th Circuit have held repeatedly texts are calls. This flows from a broad application of earlier appellate authority in the circuit concluding texts are calls under 227(b) and, as the Lewis court concluded, the same result should be reached as to 227(c).
Many courts have reached different conclusions because 227(c) governs “telephone solicitations”– a definition that includes “messages” and “telephone calls”–but 227(c)’s private right of action only applies to “telephone calls”; implying a limitation not present in 227(b)’s broader use of the mere word “call.”
Regardless, this red district continues to be red.
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 !
For those of you following the “are text messages calls” debate in TCPAWorld we have another data point for you.
In Lewis v. Tenth Hall, 2026 WL 3152283 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2026) the court held SMS messages ARE calls following well-tread authority in the district.
As you can see from our map (above) courts throughout California and the entire 9th Circuit have held repeatedly texts are calls. This flows from a broad application of earlier appellate authority in the circuit concluding texts are calls under 227(b) and, as the Lewis court concluded, the same result should be reached as to 227(c).
Many courts have reached different conclusions because 227(c) governs “telephone solicitations”– a definition that includes “messages” and “telephone calls”–but 227(c)’s private right of action only applies to “telephone calls”; implying a limitation not present in 227(b)’s broader use of the mere word “call.”
Regardless, this red district continues to be red.
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