8
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
The seesaw battle over whether an SMS message constitutes a “telephone call” under the TCPA’s DNC provisions continues to rage on.
In the latest case, the Hon. Robert W. Gettleman– an influential judge in the N.D. Ill.–just held SMS messages are subject to the TCPA’s DNC restrictions.
In Rabbit v. Rohrman Midwest Motors, 2026 WL 851279 (N.D. Ill. March 27, 2026) the court rejected defendant’s arguments SMS messages are not subject to the TCPA’s DNC rules and also the claim cell phones are not “residential” numbers.
In the Court’s view, since the FCC interpreted “telephone solicitations” to include SMS messages– a determination the defendant does not challenge– the fact the private right of action extends only to “telephone calls” is of no moment because the statute protects “telephone subscribers” and those protections arising from “telephone solicitations.”
It is a bit circular, but essentially the court avoids the entire interpretative issue by backing into an answer from the defendant’s failure to challenge the FCC’s insertion of SMS messages into the definition of “telephone solicitation”– a certain trap for the unwary.
The Court goes to to find the FCC’s interpretation of “residential subscriber” to include cell phone subscribers is “reasonable” and defers to it– even though assessing the “reasonableness” of a ruling is not quite the correct standard post Loper Bright.
Regardless we have another direct ruling that SMS messages ARE subject to TCPA DNC rules AND that cell phones can be residential numbers.
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 !
The seesaw battle over whether an SMS message constitutes a “telephone call” under the TCPA’s DNC provisions continues to rage on.
In the latest case, the Hon. Robert W. Gettleman– an influential judge in the N.D. Ill.–just held SMS messages are subject to the TCPA’s DNC restrictions.
In Rabbit v. Rohrman Midwest Motors, 2026 WL 851279 (N.D. Ill. March 27, 2026) the court rejected defendant’s arguments SMS messages are not subject to the TCPA’s DNC rules and also the claim cell phones are not “residential” numbers.
In the Court’s view, since the FCC interpreted “telephone solicitations” to include SMS messages– a determination the defendant does not challenge– the fact the private right of action extends only to “telephone calls” is of no moment because the statute protects “telephone subscribers” and those protections arising from “telephone solicitations.”
It is a bit circular, but essentially the court avoids the entire interpretative issue by backing into an answer from the defendant’s failure to challenge the FCC’s insertion of SMS messages into the definition of “telephone solicitation”– a certain trap for the unwary.
The Court goes to to find the FCC’s interpretation of “residential subscriber” to include cell phone subscribers is “reasonable” and defers to it– even though assessing the “reasonableness” of a ruling is not quite the correct standard post Loper Bright.
Regardless we have another direct ruling that SMS messages ARE subject to TCPA DNC rules AND that cell phones can be residential numbers.
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