TCPA Research · Updated October 8, 2026

Are Texts Calls Under the TCPA’s Do Not Call Provision? A Map of the Federal Courts

Federal courts are split on whether a marketing text message counts as a “telephone call” under the Do Not Call provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. This map shows, for each of the 94 federal judicial districts, the rulings we have found on the question and which way they went, with a source link for each ruling we rely on.

View the MapSee the Rulings

Rulings we have reviewed through October 8, 2026 · Red: a court held texts are not calls under § 227(c)(5) · Green: a court held they are · Grey: no ruling found, or a ruling we have not finished reviewing

What the Courts Are Deciding

Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA lets a person sue when they receive more than one “telephone call” within 12 months from the same company in violation of the Do Not Call rules, for example telemarketing to a number on the National Do Not Call Registry. The statute says “telephone call.” Congress wrote it in 1991, before text messaging existed.

This map tracks only the Do Not Call provision. Courts have generally continued to treat texts as calls under § 227(b), which covers autodialed and prerecorded-voice calls. The Seventh Circuit in Steidinger distinguished that provision without deciding it, and the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed in 2026 that texts are calls under it. A text sent with an autodialer, as the Supreme Court narrowly defined it in Facebook v. Duguid (2021), can still support a claim under § 227(b), although some defendants now argue, and one magistrate judge has recommended, that the Do Not Call reasoning applies there too.

For years courts followed the FCC's view that a text message counts as a call. After the Supreme Court's decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025), district courts in private TCPA lawsuits are no longer bound by the FCC's reading of the statute; they decide its meaning themselves, giving the FCC's view appropriate respect. They do not agree.

The Seventh Circuit, in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, held that a text message is not a telephone call under § 227(c)(5). That decision currently binds the federal district courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The Ninth Circuit, in Howard v. Republican National Committee, treated texts as calls. That case arose under § 227(b), the separate robocall provision, and did not decide the Do Not Call question. District courts in the Ninth Circuit have applied that reading, which comes from Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster (9th Cir. 2009) and Howard, to § 227(c)(5), but the map leaves Ninth Circuit districts without their own ruling grey, and the Circuit view marks the Ninth Circuit as persuasive authority only. Elsewhere, individual district judges have gone both ways, sometimes within the same state.

For someone receiving unwanted marketing texts, this matters: whether a Do Not Call claim based on texts can go forward may depend on which federal court hears the case.

How to read the map

Red means a court in that district has held that texts are not calls under § 227(c)(5). Green means a court has held that texts are calls. Grey means we have not found a ruling that decides the question, or that we know of a ruling but have not yet confirmed the court's reasoning. Districts that are colored only because of a circuit decision are labeled that way, and so are rulings on a motion for default judgment, where the defendant was in default and did not contest the point. Where judges in a district disagree, the color follows the most recent contested ruling; a default-judgment ruling colors a district only when it has no contested ruling. In the Circuit view, the Ninth Circuit is shaded for persuasive § 227(b) authority, not a Do Not Call holding. Hover over or select a district to see the cases and a source link for each, and use Show above the map to bring one outcome to the front.

The Map

View
Show

Court held texts are not callsCourt held texts are not calls
16
No ruling or not fully reviewedNo § 227(c)(5) ruling
62
Court held texts are callsCourt held texts are calls
16

16 districts where a court held texts are not calls, 16 where a court held texts are calls, 62 with no ruling or a ruling not fully reviewed.

Use the arrow keys to move between areas; moving to an area shows its rulings in the panel next to the map. Escape clears the selection.

Courts not drawn on the map:
No map area:

Selected districtcircuit

Hover over or tab to a districtcircuit on the map for a preview. Select it, on the map or in the list below, to show its rulings and source links here.

Turn on JavaScript to select a districtcircuit and see its rulings here. Every ruling the map relies on is listed below under Rulings Shown on the Map, with links to the court records.

Select an area on the map or in the list to see its rulings; clicking it on the map again, or pressing Escape, clears the selection. Show keeps one outcome in full color and fades the rest, and filters the lists below to match. To model how a split might look, turn on Model a scenario: clicking an area then applies the paint tool (on a touch screen, or in the lists, the first tap selects and a second tap paints). Restore rulings puts the verified rulings back, Clear all clears the view on screen, and leaving scenario mode returns to the verified map. The page address saves what you see, so Copy share link shares exactly that.

Rulings Shown on the Map

Court of appeals decisions

7th Circuit: texts are not calls under § 227(c)(5)

As of October 8, 2026, this is the only federal court of appeals decision on the § 227(c)(5) question. It held that text messages are not 'telephone calls' under the Do Not Call private right of action, and it currently binds the federal district courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

9th Circuit: texts are calls under § 227(b)(persuasive for § 227(c)(5))
  • Howard v. Republican National Committee, 164 F.4th 1119 (9th Cir. 2026) (opens the ruling in a new tab)Persuasive circuit authorityDecided under § 227(b)Decided under § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and (b)(1)(B) only; the opinion does not address § 227(c). Reaffirms, without agency deference, Satterfield's view that a text message is a 'call' under the TCPA, but affirms dismissal on the separate ground that a tap-to-play video is not a prerecorded-voice call. Collins, J., with Fitzwater, D.J.; Rawlinson, J., dissenting.

Not a § 227(c)(5) holding. Howard v. RNC (2026) and Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster (2009) held under § 227(b), the robocall provision, that a text message is a 'call'. District courts in the Ninth Circuit have applied that reading to § 227(c)(5) (for example Wilson v. Skopos, D'Agostino v. Circle K, and, after Steidinger, Miller v. S. Brown & Associates and Combs v. UG Franchise Operations, which declined to follow it). Shown as persuasive authority only, not binding precedent on § 227(c)(5).

Court held texts are calls(16 districts)

Central District of California
District of Arizona
District of Connecticut
District of New Jersey

Not counted for color: Zelma v. Wonder Group, Inc. (applied without deciding).

District of Oregon
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Middle District of Louisiana
Northern District of California
Northern District of Texas
Northern District of West Virginia
Southern District of California
Southern District of Florida

Judges in this district disagree. In three contested rulings in November 2025 (Glasel, McGonigle, and Piet v. Office Depot), Judge Dimitrouleas held that a text message is a call, following what he called 'existing Eleventh Circuit precedent' (earlier Eleventh Circuit decisions that accepted the FCC's view), while noting that the Eleventh Circuit had not directly addressed the question. In Anthony v. Brian Marketing Group (Sept. 11, 2026), Judge Cannon denied a default judgment; footnote 16 of that order adopts Steidinger and treats the conclusion that § 227(c)(5) does not cover text messages as an independent, alternative basis for the denial. The defendant there did not appear, so the point was not contested. The district is shown by its contested rulings. Bosley v. A Bradley Hospitality (applied without deciding) is not counted.

Southern District of New York
Southern District of Texas
Western District of Texas

Not counted for color: Watkins v. EyeBuyDirect, Inc. (applied without deciding) and Callier v. Reovations Unlimited (magistrate recommendation). Both rulings counted are default judgments in which the defendant never appeared, adopting magistrate judges' recommendations; both predate Steidinger.

Western District of Washington

Court held texts are not calls(16 districts)

Central District of IllinoisShown by 7th Circuit precedent

Controlled by Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services (7th Cir. 2026), which binds every district court in the Seventh Circuit.

District of Colorado
Middle District of Florida

Not counted for color: Lopresti v. Nouveau Essentials Marketing LLC (magistrate recommendation).

Middle District of North Carolina

Hudson v. Palm Beach Tan (2024), decided before McLaughlin on a magistrate judge's adopted recommendation, treated texts as calls. Card (2026) is the more recent ruling.

Northern District of Alabama
Northern District of Florida
Northern District of Georgia

The appeal in Radvansky v. Kendo Holdings (11th Cir. No. 26-10837) was dismissed on the parties' joint stipulation on July 2, 2026; the Eleventh Circuit has not decided the question.

Northern District of IllinoisShown by 7th Circuit precedent

Controlled by Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services (7th Cir. 2026), which binds every district court in the Seventh Circuit. Earlier rulings in this district holding that texts are calls (Mujahid v. Newity, Hernandez v. Bedford Dental, Rabbitt v. Rohrman Midwest Motors) were abrogated by it.

Northern District of Ohio
Southern District of IndianaShown by 7th Circuit precedent

Controlled by Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services (7th Cir. 2026), which binds every district court in the Seventh Circuit.

Western District of Missouri
Western District of Virginia
  • Lowrey v. Twilio, Inc., No. 6:25-cv-00116 (W.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2026) (opens the ruling in a new tab)Senior Judge Norman K. Moon (Dkt. 99); 2026 WL 2958730. On contested motions to dismiss, followed Steidinger: 'Because a text message is different from a telephone call and because § 227(c)(5) only applies to "telephone calls," Lowrey's § 227(c)(5) claims relying on text messages must be dismissed.' Also held, as a separate ground, that § 227(c) covers residential landlines, not cell phones.

Also shown red by circuit precedent, with no district ruling found: Eastern District of Wisconsin; Northern District of Indiana; Southern District of Illinois; Western District of Wisconsin.

Known rulings we have not finished reviewing

We know of these rulings but have not yet confirmed the courts' reasoning. Until we do, their districts stay grey on the map.

Eastern District of Virginia
  • McGonigle v. Teleflora LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00807 (E.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2026)Not fully reviewedJudge Michael S. Nachmanoff denied a motion to dismiss arguing, as alternative grounds, that text messages are not 'telephone calls' under § 227(c)(5) and that cell-phone users are not residential subscribers. The written order says only that the motion is denied 'for the reasons stated in open court,' and we have not yet reviewed the hearing transcript, so this district stays grey until we can confirm the court's reasoning.

All 94 districts, by circuit16 districts where a court held texts are not calls, by circuit16 districts where a court held texts are calls, by circuit62 districts with no ruling or a ruling not fully reviewed, by circuitAll 13 circuits1 circuit where a court held texts are not calls1 circuit where a court held texts are calls11 circuits with no circuit ruling on § 227(c)(5)

Select a districtcircuit to show its rulings next to the map.

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

D.C. Circuit

Know of a Case We Missed?

This map reflects rulings we have reviewed through October 8, 2026. New decisions come out regularly. If you know of a ruling that is missing or has changed, send it to us with the case name and docket number and we will review it.

Getting Unwanted Marketing Texts?

Whether texts count as calls is only one part of a TCPA claim. Learn how we handle spam text claims. If you live in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or Ohio, start a free case review and we will tell you whether your messages may give you a claim.

Start Your Free Case Review(469) 960-6069

Free case review · No upfront fee · Available 24/7

If we do not recover, you owe neither attorney's fees nor case expenses.

Disclaimer. This map is general information about court decisions, not legal advice. Using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. It may be incomplete or out of date, and a ruling from one judge does not bind other judges in the same district. Talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Court rulings can change, and the outcome of any case depends on its facts.

Sources. Our initial case list drew on research published by Perrong Law LLC (aretextscalls.com), which is not affiliated with this firm. We checked each ruling the map relies on ourselves. Where we could not obtain the order, the link under the case says how we confirmed it.

Attorney advertising. Attorney responsible for this page: Omar Darwich, The Darwich Law Firm, McKinney, Texas.