49
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
TCPAWorld has been following the story from the start– text messages may no longer be covered by the TCPA following a recent Supreme Court ruling setting aside much of the FCC’s work on the subject.
Courts are now free to decide on their own whether SMS Messages are entitled to DNC protection– and yesterday the influential Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday that text messages do not count as “telephone calls” that are prevented by DNC list registration.
In Stenindingr v. Blackstone Medical Services, 2026 WL 2028517 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026) Plaintiff sued Blackstone alleging receipt of unwanted solicitation text messages. Plaintiff alleged her number is on the National DNC registry and sued in a TCPA class action seeking up to $1,500.00 per SMS.
On appeal the court needed to determine whether a party can sue for unwanted SMS messages or only for traditional voice calls. At issue is the TCPA language authorizing suit for “telephone calls” that violate the TCPA’s DNC rules– but is an SMS a telephone call?
The Seventh Circuit held it is not looking at the plain meaning of the phrase– a telephone call was understood back in 1991 to mean a voice communication by phone, not an SMS communication (since those did not exist until the following year.)
Equally helpful the Court (correctly) noted different language in the TCPA that defines a “telephone solicitation” to include a call or message. But the private right of action does not allow suit for receipt of an unlawful solicitation– only an unlawful telephone call. This distinction is critical– because Congress used different language in the private right of action it must mean it intended lawsuits only for receipt of unlawful calls and not messages– like an SMS.
At bottom the court held there is no private right of action under the TCPA’s DNC provisions but agencies can still sue you for illegal SMS messages violating the DNC ules:
Repeated, unwanted text messages are undoubtedly a nuisance. But they do not fall within the private right of action created by
§ 227(c)(5). Instead, spam messages may be curbed through agency action pursuant to other provisions of § 227, which we leave
undisturbed. The district court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ TCPA claims was appropriate, as was its dismissal of the present suit.
Take aways:
More analysis soon.
Love you all,
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 !
TCPAWorld has been following the story from the start– text messages may no longer be covered by the TCPA following a recent Supreme Court ruling setting aside much of the FCC’s work on the subject.
Courts are now free to decide on their own whether SMS Messages are entitled to DNC protection– and yesterday the influential Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday that text messages do not count as “telephone calls” that are prevented by DNC list registration.
In Stenindingr v. Blackstone Medical Services, 2026 WL 2028517 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026) Plaintiff sued Blackstone alleging receipt of unwanted solicitation text messages. Plaintiff alleged her number is on the National DNC registry and sued in a TCPA class action seeking up to $1,500.00 per SMS.
On appeal the court needed to determine whether a party can sue for unwanted SMS messages or only for traditional voice calls. At issue is the TCPA language authorizing suit for “telephone calls” that violate the TCPA’s DNC rules– but is an SMS a telephone call?
The Seventh Circuit held it is not looking at the plain meaning of the phrase– a telephone call was understood back in 1991 to mean a voice communication by phone, not an SMS communication (since those did not exist until the following year.)
Equally helpful the Court (correctly) noted different language in the TCPA that defines a “telephone solicitation” to include a call or message. But the private right of action does not allow suit for receipt of an unlawful solicitation– only an unlawful telephone call. This distinction is critical– because Congress used different language in the private right of action it must mean it intended lawsuits only for receipt of unlawful calls and not messages– like an SMS.
At bottom the court held there is no private right of action under the TCPA’s DNC provisions but agencies can still sue you for illegal SMS messages violating the DNC ules:
Repeated, unwanted text messages are undoubtedly a nuisance. But they do not fall within the private right of action created by
§ 227(c)(5). Instead, spam messages may be curbed through agency action pursuant to other provisions of § 227, which we leave
undisturbed. The district court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ TCPA claims was appropriate, as was its dismissal of the present suit.
Take aways:
More analysis soon.
Love you all,
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