Key Takeaways:

  • The Seventh Circuit held that the TCPA’s private right of action under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) “does not permit plaintiffs to sue for the receipt of unwanted texts.”
  • The Seventh Circuit holding is limited to TCPA claims under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5); it did not hold that text messages are not subject to § 227(b).
  • Text messages may nonetheless be subject to analogous state laws (i.e., “mini-TCPAs”)

Courts have been inundated with TCPA claims, often filed as proposed class actions, arising from text messages. On July 14, 2026, however, the Seventh Circuit held that the TCPA’s private right of action under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) “does not permit plaintiffs to sue for the receipt of unwanted texts.” Seth Steidinger, et al. v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026).

Steidinger focuses on § 227(c)(5), which is the subsection that authorizes a private right of action for a person who receives more than one “telephone call” within a 12-month period. While other subsections in § 227(c) refer to “telephone solicitations,” which includes a “telephone call or message,” the private right of action subsection is specific to a “telephone call.” Thus, the court held that § 227(c)(5) provides a private right of action for telephone calls but not text messages.

Steidinger is an important ruling, because of both its result and its robust analysis, and will be a powerful tool in persuading courts outside the Seventh Circuit to follow the decision. But it is not a panacea for at least three reasons. First, and most obviously, it is only binding in the Seventh Circuit, and Steidinger notes that other circuit courts have found that texts are calls under a different TCPA subsection (§ 227(b)). Second, it is limited to private rights of action under § 227(c)(5) and thus does not address TCPA claims alleging text messages were sent via an automatic telephone dialing system without the requisite consent. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). Finally, state “mini-TCPAs,” which often mirror the TCPA in key respects, can include texts within their call prohibitions (e.g., Fla. Stat. 501.059(1)(j)).