Florida Court: TCPA Do Not Call Rules Don’t Cover Texts

Imagine you’re minding your business when your phone buzzes with: “🔥 LIMITED TIME OFFER 🔥 Reply YES!” You didn’t ask for it.
You didn’t want it. You definitely didn’t invite it. You did, however, learn a new yoga pose: the furious thumb-tap
as you slam “STOP” like you’re defusing a bomb.

So here’s the twist: a Florida federal court has said thatat least under one key part of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
the National Do Not Call rules don’t necessarily cover text messages. In other words, “Do Not Call” might not mean “Do Not Text,” depending
on where you’re standing when the lawsuit gets filed (and which judge gets the joy of reading everyone’s screenshots).

Let’s break down what the Florida court decided, why this fight is happening now, and what it means for businesses that love SMS marketing
and consumers who love not being marketed to while eating cereal in peace.

Quick refresher: What the TCPA and Do Not Call rules actually do

The TCPA is a major U.S. consumer privacy law that restricts certain telemarketing practices. It’s famous for big-dollar class actions because the
damages can add up quicklyespecially when the “violations” arrive one buzz at a time.

The National Do Not Call Registry is the government-maintained list of phone numbers that telemarketers are generally supposed to avoid for sales calls.
Registering is free, and the idea is simple: you opt out once, and compliant telemarketers leave you alone. (Scammers, of course, did not RSVP to this plan.)

Under the TCPA’s do-not-call framework, there are two big buckets people often mix up:

• National Do Not Call Registry rules: the “don’t solicit numbers on the list” concept for telemarketing outreach.
• Company-specific do-not-call rules: when you tell a specific business “stop,” they’re expected to honor that request and keep internal records.

The controversy is not whether spammy texts are annoying (we have scientific consensus). The controversy is whether certain TCPA do-not-call provisions,
as written, give consumers a private right to sue over unwanted textsor only unwanted calls.

The Florida ruling in plain English: “A text message isn’t a telephone call”

In Davis v. CVS Pharmacy (Northern District of Florida), the court dismissed do-not-call claims based on promotional text messages.
The judge’s core reasoning: the statute’s private right of action for do-not-call violations uses the phrase “telephone call”and in ordinary
language, texts and calls aren’t the same thing.

If this feels like a “dictionary duel,” you’re not wrong. A major theme in the decision is plain meaningthe idea that courts start with what
the words commonly mean, especially when the statute’s language looks straightforward.

Why the wording matters: Section 227(c)(5) is picky about “telephone calls”

The private right of action tied to the do-not-call framework is often discussed as: “If a company calls you while you’re on the Registry, you can sue.”
But the text of the law is more specific: it focuses on a person who has received more than one telephone call within a 12-month period
in violation of the do-not-call regulations.

The Florida court leaned into that wording. The logic goes like this:

1. The law says “telephone call,” not “text message.”
2. Congress has shown in other places that it can distinguish between calls and messages when it wants to.
3. So, if Congress didn’t include texts here, courts shouldn’t casually add them in.

That’s why this decision is often summarized as: TCPA Do Not Call rules don’t cover textsat least under this particular private right of action,
according to this judge’s reading.

“But the FCC has said texts are calls…” (Yes. And that’s where it gets spicy.)

For years, many courts treated texts as “calls” under the TCPA largely because the FCC had said so in guidance and orders. The FCC has long treated
certain “text calls” as covered communications under the TCPA frameworkespecially around automated dialing and consent.

The Florida court, however, didn’t consider itself locked into the FCC’s interpretation for this do-not-call subsection. Why? Because the legal environment
around deference to agency interpretations has shifted in a big way.

Why courts are suddenly re-litigating “texts vs. calls” in 2025–2026

This issue didn’t pop up because people just discovered texting (although judging by some group chats, that discovery is still ongoing).
It popped up because of major legal developments that changed how district courts treat agency interpretations.

1) The Supreme Court changed how much weight courts must give the FCC

After the Supreme Court’s decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson, district courts are not necessarily required to treat FCC TCPA
interpretations as binding in private litigation in the way many had assumed for years. That cracked the door open for judges to say, “Thanks, FCC, but I’m going
to read the statute myself.”

Add in the broader trend away from automatic deference to agency interpretations, and you get today’s messy reality: different courts reading the same words and
reaching different outcomes.

2) The FCC tried to clarify anywayespecially for robotexts

Meanwhile, the FCC has continued to regulate the robotext ecosystem. Notably, FCC rulemaking and Federal Register publications have stated that the National
Do Not Call Registry protections extend to text messages. That regulatory move matters, but it doesn’t automatically end the debateespecially when courts are
emphasizing statutory text and asking whether the private right of action (as written by Congress) matches the regulation (as written by the agency).

Translation: even if the FCC says “DNC protections extend to texts,” some judges are asking, “Okay, but does the statute’s private lawsuit provision extend to texts?”
That’s a different questionwith big consequences.

Florida isn’t alone: a national split is growing

Florida’s “texts aren’t calls” ruling didn’t happen in a vacuum. Courts across the country have been splitting into two campssometimes within the same state, and
sometimes on the very same day.

Camp A: Courts saying TCPA DNC private lawsuits don’t cover texts

The Florida decision fits into a broader line of cases that read “telephone call” narrowly for the do-not-call private right of action:

• Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services (C.D. Ill.) held that the do-not-call private right of action (focused on “telephone calls”) does not
  extend to text messages.
• Davis v. CVS Pharmacy (N.D. Fla.) held that a text message is not a “telephone call” for TCPA DNC private-action purposes.
• El Sayed v. Naturopathica Holistic Health (M.D. Fla.) similarly dismissed a DNC claim based on promotional texts, emphasizing the plain
  distinction between calls and texts.

These courts generally emphasize:

• Plain meaning: people don’t say “he called me” when they mean “he texted me.”
• 1991 context: Congress wrote the TCPA before modern SMS became common; courts are wary of “updating” the statute from the bench.
• Structural clues: when Congress wants to include “messages,” it knows how to say so.

Camp B: Courts saying DNC protections can extend to texts

On the other side, other courts have found that treating texts as outside do-not-call protections would undermine the TCPA’s privacy goalsbecause a text can be
just as intrusive (and sometimes even more persistent) than a call.

Examples often cited in this camp include:

• Wilson v. Skopos Financial (D. Or.) reached the opposite conclusion from Jones on the same day, finding that the DNC private right of action can
  include texts.
• Wilson v. MEDVIDI (N.D. Cal.) treated telemarketing texts as functionally similar to telemarketing calls for TCPA DNC purposes.

This group tends to emphasize:

• Privacy purpose: both calls and texts can invade privacy and impose nuisance costs.
• Functional reading: texting is a form of telephone-based communication, even if it’s written instead of spoken.
• Regulatory history: decades of FCC guidance and court decisions have treated texts as covered in multiple TCPA contexts.

So… does “Do Not Call” protect you from unwanted texts or not?

The honest answer: it depends on the court, and the issue is still unsettled. The Florida cases make clear that some judges read the do-not-call
private right of action narrowly. Other judges read it broadly.

And Florida remains a headline generator. As of early 2026, at least one Florida federal court has even paused discovery in a putative class action while it weighs
whether texts qualify as “calls” under the do-not-call provisionsbecause the legal question may decide the case before anyone needs to argue about how many texts were
sent, when, and whether “STOP” was typed with adequate emotional intensity.

What this means for businesses using SMS marketing

If you run marketing campaigns, the Florida decision might feel like a green light. It isn’t. Think of it as a yellow light… in Florida… during a thunderstorm.
Technically you can proceed, but your insurance company is already sighing.

1) DNC isn’t the only TCPA risk

Even if a do-not-call private claim gets dismissed in one jurisdiction, companies can still face exposure under other TCPA provisions (and under state “mini-TCPA”
laws). The TCPA also covers issues like consent requirements for automated texts, opt-out handling, prerecorded voice rules, and more.

2) Consent is still your best friend (and your best evidence)

In SMS marketing, consent isn’t just a checkboxit’s your litigation seatbelt. If you can’t prove how and when a consumer consented, you’re basically bringing
a spoon to a knife fight. And the knife is labeled “class action.”

Practical compliance habits that reduce risk across jurisdictions:

• Capture clean opt-ins: document the language, the timestamp, and the phone number.
• Honor STOP immediately: treat opt-outs as urgent, not as a “we’ll get to it after lunch.”
• Maintain internal suppression lists: even if DNC coverage is debated, ignoring direct opt-outs is a terrible look everywhere.
• Vet lead sources: if consent comes from third parties, ensure it’s specific, traceable, and seller-specific where required.
• Use frequency discipline: the more you text, the more likely you create the kind of “nuisance narrative” plaintiffs love.

3) Don’t confuse “not covered” with “safe”

A court saying “this particular DNC private right of action doesn’t apply to texts” does not mean “text away, my chaotic friends.” There are still:

• Other TCPA provisions that plaintiffs may use.
• State statutes (some stricter than federal law).
• Carrier policies and filtering that can throttleor blockcampaigns.
• Consumer trust damage, which is expensive in a way statutory damages can’t fully capture.

What consumers should know (besides “STOP” and deep breathing)

If you’re on the National Do Not Call Registry and still getting marketing texts, it may feel like the system is broken. Sometimes it is.
Sometimes the sender is a scammer. Sometimes it’s a legitimate company with sloppy consent records. And sometimes the legal theory you’d expect to work“I’m on DNC,
therefore I can sue over these texts”may depend on where you bring the claim.

Practical steps consumers often take:

• Reply STOP (once): many compliant programs automatically suppress after STOP.
• Document patterns: dates, numbers, screenshotsboring, but useful.
• Report scams: the Registry is not a scam shield; regulators often recommend reporting suspicious outreach.
• Use device-level blocking: sometimes the fastest fix is the “block/report” button.

Conclusion: Florida’s ruling is a big dealbut it’s not the final word

The Florida court’s “texts aren’t calls” reading of TCPA do-not-call private actions is a meaningful development, especially for businesses defending class actions
based on marketing texts to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. But it also highlights a bigger theme: TCPA litigation is entering an era where courts may
disagree more often, because they’re relying less on a single agency playbook and more on their own reading of statutory text.

For marketers, the safest strategy is boring (and therefore effective): get clear consent, honor opt-outs fast, keep meticulous records, and behave like a brand that
wants customersnot enemies with screenshots.

For consumers, this is another reminder that legal protections can be complicated, even when the spam is simple. The more the courts split, the more important it is
to track what’s happening in your jurisdiction.

Field Notes: of Practical Experience (Without the Legal Advice)

When businesses talk about “TCPA compliance,” it can sound like a dusty binder that lives under someone’s desk next to a broken stapler. In reality, compliance is
more like a daily habitcloser to brushing your teeth than filing your taxes. You can skip it for a while, but eventually something painful happens.

1) The #1 mistake: treating “consent” like a vibe

A lot of SMS programs don’t fail because the company wanted to spam people. They fail because consent was captured loosely: unclear disclosure language, missing
timestamps, or opt-ins bundled with unrelated permissions. When a dispute lands in court, “we thought they opted in” is not a record. It’s a feeling.
And courts do not award damages based on feelings (unless you count emotional distress from reading “u up?” at 2 a.m.which, sadly, is outside the TCPA).

2) STOP should mean stopfast, everywhere, always

Operationally, the most common friction point is opt-out processing. Maybe one platform suppresses properly, but a second vendor keeps sending. Or a campaign
relaunch accidentally re-imports old lists. From a risk standpoint, continuing to text after a clear opt-out is the kind of fact pattern that makes judges skeptical
and plaintiffs’ lawyers delighted. Even where the “DNC texts” theory is debated, ignoring opt-outs invites alternative legal theories and reputational blowback.

3) Frequency is a compliance issue, not just a marketing tactic

Marketing teams love “engagement.” Litigation loves “volume.” The difference is who’s smiling when they say it. A modest cadence can reduce complaints, reduce
carrier filtering, and reduce the odds that a consumer decides to screenshot a week’s worth of messages and label it “harassment” in a complaint.

4) Jurisdiction matters more than your brand guidelines

The Florida court decisions spotlight a reality many businesses don’t plan for: your risk profile changes with venue. A campaign that seems defensible under one
court’s reading of the TCPA might be actionable under another’s. That’s why smart programs don’t build to the loosest interpretation available. They build to a
durable standard that survives across jurisdictions: documented consent, robust opt-out controls, and conservative suppression.

5) “We followed the FCC” is no longer a magic spell

For years, businesses leaned on FCC guidance as a steady north star. Now, after the deference shifts and the growing split, some courts may treat FCC interpretations
as persuasive but not controlling. Practically, that means compliance programs should be designed with two audiences in mind: regulators and courts doing
independent statutory interpretation. The safest play is to treat SMS marketing like it’s regulated (because it is), even when a headline suggests a loophole.

Bottom line: The “texts aren’t calls” decisions are important, but they’re not a permission slip to get sloppy. If anything, they’re a reminder that the legal map is
changingand the best way to avoid getting lost is to carry receipts: consent records, opt-out logs, and a suppression process that works even when someone accidentally
clicks “send to everyone.”