67
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
The Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. has upended the long-settled framework for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) compliance and litigation. As we discussed in our rundown of the decision, by holding that courts are no longer required to defer to FCC interpretations of the TCPA, McLaughlin invites a wave of judicial re-interpretation – particularly around the scope of the act’s Do-Not-Call (DNC) provisions.
Just weeks later, courts are already divided on a critical issue: Do DNC rules apply to marketing text messages? On July 21, 2025, two federal courts issued directly conflicting decisions. In Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services, the Central District of Illinois became the first to apply McLaughlin to DNC claims and ruled that the statute’s protections do not extend to texts. The same day, the District of Oregon in Chet Wilson v. Skopos Financial reached the opposite conclusion – finding that DNC protections do apply to text messages, relying instead on long-standing FCC guidance and the consumer privacy goals of the TCPA.
These diverging decisions set the stage for heightened litigation risk, forum shopping, and regulatory uncertainty. Businesses engaged in direct-to-consumer text marketing – particularly those relying on DNC compliance programs – should pay close attention to how these issues continue to evolve in the coming months.
The TCPA’s application to text messages is complicated by the fact that it was passed in 1991, before the first Short Message Service (SMS) message had even been sent (let alone entered general usage among consumers). Nevertheless, the FCC has promulgated rules applying the TCPA to text messages. Courts have almost invariably deferred to the FCC’s position that the DNC Registry protects consumers from unwanted text messages.
But on July 21, 2025, the Central District of Illinois broke with the past and rejected the FCC’s stance in the first post-McLaughlin decision, endorsing the argument that DNC provisions do not apply to text messages in Jones.
In Jones, plaintiffs alleged that Blackstone bombarded them with marketing texts and calls, even after “STOP” requests were made, while their numbers were listed on the DNC Registry. Asserting four federal causes of action under the TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227(c)) and FCC regulations, they sought to hold Blackstone liable for what they claimed were clear violations.
However, the court wasn’t convinced. Taking a strict textual approach, and breaking from years of FCC interpretation, it sided with Blackstone and dismissed the TCPA claims. The court held:
But, the very same day, on July 21, 2025, the Oregon district court in Chet Wilson v. Skopos Financial, LLC, found the opposite, holding that DNC protections do extend to text messages. This court concluded that the FCC guidance was supported by the privacy goals of the TCPA, and unsolicited texts to numbers on the DNC Registry can violate the TCPA in the same way as unsolicited phone calls.
Considering the frequency of DNC Registry claims based on unwanted text messaging, we expect many more courts to issue decisions on this issue following McLaughlin.
These conflicting rulings create significant uncertainty for businesses subject to TCPA regulations, especially those using text messaging for marketing. Plaintiffs may now file cases in jurisdictions with more favorable interpretations, increasing litigation risk and compliance complexity. The split also means that companies must closely monitor where lawsuits are filed and be prepared for divergent outcomes until appellate courts or Congress provide clarity.
Given the current uncertainty, businesses should reassess their compliance programs, maintain robust opt-in and opt-out procedures, and stay alert to further legal and regulatory developments. While the Jones decision may provide a winning argument in some jurisdictions, the risk of liability remains in others –making proactive compliance and legal review more important than ever.
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 !
The Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. has upended the long-settled framework for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) compliance and litigation. As we discussed in our rundown of the decision, by holding that courts are no longer required to defer to FCC interpretations of the TCPA, McLaughlin invites a wave of judicial re-interpretation – particularly around the scope of the act’s Do-Not-Call (DNC) provisions.
Just weeks later, courts are already divided on a critical issue: Do DNC rules apply to marketing text messages? On July 21, 2025, two federal courts issued directly conflicting decisions. In Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services, the Central District of Illinois became the first to apply McLaughlin to DNC claims and ruled that the statute’s protections do not extend to texts. The same day, the District of Oregon in Chet Wilson v. Skopos Financial reached the opposite conclusion – finding that DNC protections do apply to text messages, relying instead on long-standing FCC guidance and the consumer privacy goals of the TCPA.
These diverging decisions set the stage for heightened litigation risk, forum shopping, and regulatory uncertainty. Businesses engaged in direct-to-consumer text marketing – particularly those relying on DNC compliance programs – should pay close attention to how these issues continue to evolve in the coming months.
The TCPA’s application to text messages is complicated by the fact that it was passed in 1991, before the first Short Message Service (SMS) message had even been sent (let alone entered general usage among consumers). Nevertheless, the FCC has promulgated rules applying the TCPA to text messages. Courts have almost invariably deferred to the FCC’s position that the DNC Registry protects consumers from unwanted text messages.
But on July 21, 2025, the Central District of Illinois broke with the past and rejected the FCC’s stance in the first post-McLaughlin decision, endorsing the argument that DNC provisions do not apply to text messages in Jones.
In Jones, plaintiffs alleged that Blackstone bombarded them with marketing texts and calls, even after “STOP” requests were made, while their numbers were listed on the DNC Registry. Asserting four federal causes of action under the TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227(c)) and FCC regulations, they sought to hold Blackstone liable for what they claimed were clear violations.
However, the court wasn’t convinced. Taking a strict textual approach, and breaking from years of FCC interpretation, it sided with Blackstone and dismissed the TCPA claims. The court held:
But, the very same day, on July 21, 2025, the Oregon district court in Chet Wilson v. Skopos Financial, LLC, found the opposite, holding that DNC protections do extend to text messages. This court concluded that the FCC guidance was supported by the privacy goals of the TCPA, and unsolicited texts to numbers on the DNC Registry can violate the TCPA in the same way as unsolicited phone calls.
Considering the frequency of DNC Registry claims based on unwanted text messaging, we expect many more courts to issue decisions on this issue following McLaughlin.
These conflicting rulings create significant uncertainty for businesses subject to TCPA regulations, especially those using text messaging for marketing. Plaintiffs may now file cases in jurisdictions with more favorable interpretations, increasing litigation risk and compliance complexity. The split also means that companies must closely monitor where lawsuits are filed and be prepared for divergent outcomes until appellate courts or Congress provide clarity.
Given the current uncertainty, businesses should reassess their compliance programs, maintain robust opt-in and opt-out procedures, and stay alert to further legal and regulatory developments. While the Jones decision may provide a winning argument in some jurisdictions, the risk of liability remains in others –making proactive compliance and legal review more important than ever.
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