Seventh Circuit: Spam Texts Are Not Calls Under the TCPA Do Not Call Lawsuit Provision

What the court decided

The case is Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard argument on May 21, 2026 and decided the case on July 14, 2026. Judge Kirsch wrote the opinion for a panel with Judges Pryor and Maldonado.

The plaintiffs said Blackstone kept sending them marketing texts and calls about home sleep tests. According to the opinion, they kept getting them after replying STOP or after adding their numbers to the National Do Not Call Registry. They sued as a class under 47 U.S.C. 227(c)(5) and under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The trial court in the Central District of Illinois (Judge Hawley, No. 1:24-cv-01074) dismissed the TCPA claims. The appeals court affirmed: “Because we conclude that § 227(c)(5) does not permit plaintiffs to sue for the receipt of unwanted texts, we affirm.”

Why the court said a text is not a call

Section 227(c)(5) lets a person sue if they received “more than one telephone call within any 12-month period” from the same entity in violation of the Do Not Call rules. The court read “telephone call” by what it meant when Congress passed the TCPA in 1991. The opinion notes the first text message was not sent until December 1992.

The plaintiffs pointed to the FCC. In a rule published January 26, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 5098), the FCC extended Do Not Call Registry protection to texts. The court said that rule rests on a different subsection, 227(c)(3), which speaks of “telephone solicitations,” so it “doesn’t inform our understanding of § 227(c)(5).” Then it added: “Even if it did, we aren’t bound by the FCC’s interpretation.” For that it cited the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision, which we explain in our story on McLaughlin v. McKesson and FCC deference.

The court closed this way: “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.”

What the ruling does not decide

The decision is narrower than some headlines made it sound. Keep these limits in mind:

• It covers one section. The ruling is about the Do Not Call private right of action in 227(c)(5). It does not decide claims under 227(b), which covers autodialed and prerecorded messages. The Seventh Circuit itself noted that other circuits have treated texts as calls under 227(b), including the Ninth Circuit in Howard v. Republican National Committee, 164 F.4th 1119 (9th Cir. 2026).
• It covers one circuit. Seventh Circuit decisions bind federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Courts elsewhere can disagree. On July 21, 2025, a federal judge in Oregon held the opposite in Wilson v. Skopos Financial, according to a summary by the law firm Troutman Amin.
• Calls still count. A footnote says the plaintiffs did not argue their case could go forward on the phone calls alone, so the court did not consider it. Live or prerecorded sales calls to a Do Not Call number remain the heart of a 227(c)(5) claim.
• State claims were not decided. After dismissing the federal claims, the trial court declined to hear the Florida law claim. The appeals court did not rule on it.

What this means if you get spam texts

If you live in Illinois, Indiana or Wisconsin, a federal lawsuit over marketing texts to a Do Not Call number under 227(c)(5) is now very hard to bring. You may still have options. Texts sent with an autodialer can raise 227(b) questions, although the Supreme Court narrowed what counts as an autodialer in Facebook v. Duguid (2021). Our autodialer (ATDS) guide explains that test. Some states also have their own telemarketing laws that reach texts; see our state robocall and autodialer law guide.

Outside the Seventh Circuit, the question is unsettled. Expect defendants everywhere to cite this opinion. National Law Review reported it as the first federal appeals court to decide whether texts are calls under 227(c)(5), so other circuits may still go the other way.

Texts mixed with calls change the picture. If the same company both texted and called you, the calls may support a Do Not Call claim even in the Seventh Circuit. Keep records of both.

What to do next if spam texts are your main problem

Screenshot every text with the sender’s number, the date and the time. Log any calls from the same company separately. Reply STOP once and save that reply too. Then have a lawyer look at which parts of the TCPA, and which state laws, fit your facts and where you live. Our page on spam text lawsuits walks through the claims that are still available.