The Seventh Circuit held that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's private Do-Not-Call remedy under Section 227(c)(5) does not cover unwanted text messages. The ruling limits that one claim in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin; it does not eliminate every TCPA lawsuit involving texts. A private action is a lawsuit filed by a consumer rather than an enforcement case brought by an agency. Consumers must now determine which TCPA provision, state law, or complaint process fits their unwanted-message evidence.
Official resources:
- Seventh Circuit's original *Steidinger* opinion — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
- Read the official guidance from Govinfo — Use this primary source to verify the official guidance.
Table of Contents
- What did the Seventh Circuit decide?
- //www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/47/227).
- Who does the decision affect?
- What text-message claims may remain?
- What should recipients of unwanted texts do?
What did the Seventh Circuit decide?
In *Steidinger v. Blackstone*, consumers alleged they continued receiving marketing texts and calls promoting home sleep tests. The communications allegedly continued after STOP replies and registration on the Do-Not-Call list.
The federal claim treated the texts as "telephone calls" under Section 227(c)(5). On July 14, 2026, the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal because that private remedy does not include texts, according to the court's original Steidinger opinion. The court did not resolve the consumers' Florida-law claim. Instead, the lower court dismissed it after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear related state claims in some cases.
//www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/47/227).
The Seventh Circuit focused on what "telephone call" ordinarily meant when Congress enacted the law in 1991. It concluded that the phrase referred to communication involving sound, not a written text. The court also compared that wording with "telephone solicitation," which the statute defines to include a call or message.
That difference indicated Congress chose narrower language when creating the Section 227(c)(5) private remedy. FCC rules may cover text-message solicitations under Do-Not-Call regulations. However, the court held that an agency rule cannot expand the private lawsuit authorized by Congress.
Who does the decision affect?
The ruling binds federal courts within the Seventh Circuit: In those states, a Section 227(c)(5) claim based solely on unwanted texts cannot proceed under *Steidinger*. A consumer cannot satisfy the "more than one telephone call" requirement merely by counting texts as calls. The decision is not a nationwide Supreme Court ruling.
The Seventh Circuit also explained that text-message cases from other federal circuits addressed different tcpa provisions, so those decisions did not control its interpretation of Section 227(c)(5). Actual voice calls remain materially different. A person who received both calls and texts should document them separately because the number, sender, timing, and legal treatment may differ.
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Wisconsin
What text-message claims may remain?
Section 227(b)(3) provides a separate private action for violations of Section 227(b). Its wording differs from the Do-Not-Call remedy, and *Steidinger* expressly distinguished it instead of deciding whether the disputed texts qualified under that provision. A Section 227(b) claim still requires facts satisfying its own statutory requirements, including any applicable automated-dialing or other conditions. The presence of an unwanted text alone does not establish that claim.
State consumer or telemarketing laws may offer another route, depending on the facts and governing law. Agency enforcement also remains possible even when Section 227(c)(5) does not give the consumer a private text-message claim. This distinction matters when evaluating a proposed class action or settlement notice. Confirm which statutory provision the case invokes instead of assuming every lawsuit mentioning the TCPA relies on the same legal theory.
What should recipients of unwanted texts do?
Preserve the evidence before deleting or blocking the conversation. A useful file should include: Separate texts from voice calls when creating a timeline.
That distinction can determine whether Section 227(c)(5), Section 227(b), state law, or an agency complaint is the relevant route. Consumers can submit unwanted-call or text information through the FCC's consumer complaint guidance. Filing an agency complaint is different from bringing a private lawsuit and does not establish eligibility for compensation.
- Screenshots showing the complete message and date
- The sender's number, short code, or displayed name
- Every STOP or other opt-out message
- Records showing when consent was given, limited, or withdrawn
- Dates and details of any related voice calls