In July 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that text messages are not “telephone calls” under 47 U.S.C. 227(c)(5). That section is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) provision that allows consumers to sue for Do Not Call violations. In Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, it can no longer generally support a federal lawsuit based solely on spam texts. Other parts of the TCPA, and some state laws, may still apply.
Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services: What the Seventh Circuit Decided
A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit heard argument in the spring of 2026 and issued its opinion that summer.
The plaintiffs said Blackstone Medical Services kept sending them marketing texts and calls about home sleep tests. According to the opinion, the messages continued after they replied STOP or added their numbers to the National Do Not Call Registry. They filed a class action under 47 U.S.C. 227(c)(5) and under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
A federal trial court in central Illinois 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 Message Is Not a “Telephone Call” Under the TCPA
Section 227(c)(5) allows a lawsuit by a person who 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 interpreted “telephone call” to mean what it meant when Congress passed the TCPA in 1991. The opinion notes that text messaging did not yet exist; the first text was sent the following year.
The plaintiffs relied on the Federal Communications Commission. In a rule published in early 2024, the FCC extended Do Not Call Registry protection to texts. The court said that rule rests on a different subsection of the statute, which speaks of “telephone solicitations,” so it “doesn’t inform our understanding of § 227(c)(5).” The court added: “Even if it did, we aren’t bound by the FCC’s interpretation.” For that point, it relied on a 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which we explain in our story on McLaughlin v. McKesson and FCC deference.
The court concluded: “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 Steidinger Ruling Does Not Decide
The decision is narrower than some headlines suggested. Keep these limits in mind:
- It addresses one TCPA section. The ruling concerns 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.
- It binds one federal circuit. Seventh Circuit decisions bind federal courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Courts elsewhere may disagree. A federal judge in Oregon reached the opposite conclusion in Wilson v. Skopos Financial, according to a summary by the law firm [Troutman Pepper Locke or Troutman Amin, see note]. Other trial courts, including at least one in Florida, have agreed with the Seventh Circuit’s view.
- Phone calls may still count. A footnote explains that the plaintiffs did not argue their case could proceed on the phone calls alone, so the court did not address that question. Unwanted sales calls to a number on the Do Not Call Registry remain central to many 227(c)(5) claims.
- State law claims were not decided. After dismissing the federal claims, the trial court declined to hear the Florida law claim, and the appeals court did not rule on it.
Spam Text Messages in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin: Legal Options That May Remain
In Illinois, Indiana or Wisconsin, a federal lawsuit under 227(c)(5) based only on marketing texts to a Do Not Call number now faces a significant obstacle. Other options may still exist. Texts sent with an autodialer can raise questions under 227(b), although the Supreme Court narrowed what counts as an autodialer in Facebook v. Duguid. Our autodialer (ATDS) guide explains that test. Several states, including some in the Seventh Circuit, have telemarketing laws that expressly reach text messages; see our state robocall and autodialer law guide.
Do Spam Text Lawsuits Still Work Outside the Seventh Circuit?
Outside the Seventh Circuit, the question remains unsettled, and defendants nationwide are likely to cite this opinion. National Law Review reported that it was the first federal appeals court to decide whether texts are calls under 227(c)(5), so other circuits may still reach a different result. Further review by the full Seventh Circuit or the Supreme Court is also possible.
Received Spam Calls and Texts From the Same Company?
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.
How to Document Spam Texts Before Speaking With a TCPA Attorney
If unwanted texts are your main concern, a few simple steps can help preserve your options:
- Take a screenshot of every text showing the sender’s number, date, and time.
- Log any calls from the same company separately.
- Reply STOP once, and save a copy of that reply.
Then consider having an attorney licensed in your state review which parts of the TCPA and which state laws may apply to your situation. Legal claims are subject to time limits that vary by law and by state, so it is generally wise not to wait. Our page on spam text lawsuits walks through the claims that may still be available.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Seventh Circuit Text Message Ruling
Can I still sue over spam texts in Illinois?
Generally not under 47 U.S.C. 227(c)(5), the Do Not Call lawsuit provision, following the Seventh Circuit’s 2026 ruling. That ruling did not decide claims under 227(b) for autodialed or prerecorded messages or certain state-law claims.
Does the Seventh Circuit ruling apply in California or Florida?
It is not binding there. It binds federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Courts in other circuits may reach a different answer, and federal trial courts have already disagreed with one another on this question, including in Oregon and Florida.
Is it still illegal to send marketing texts to a Do Not Call number?
The FCC’s rule extending Do Not Call protection to texts remains in effect, and the court left agency enforcement undisturbed. What changed in the Seventh Circuit is whether a private person can sue under 227(c)(5) over those texts.
What if a company both called and texted me?
The calls may still support a Do Not Call claim. The Seventh Circuit did not rule on the calls in Steidinger because the plaintiffs did not raise that argument.