You have a list of numbers you want to text, cold, and someone in a Facebook group told you a court just ruled that text messages are not "calls" under the TCPA, so the National Do Not Call Registry does not apply to SMS anymore. That is true, in some federal districts. It is false in others. And even where it is true, it changes less than it sounds like. Here is what actually happened, what it does for you, and what it does not.
What the TCPA's Do-Not-Call Rule Actually Says
The National Do Not Call Registry is run by the FTC under the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Separately, the TCPA gives consumers their own private right to sue over it, at 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5): anyone who gets more than one unwanted "telephone call" within a 12-month period from the same company, after registering their number on the Registry, can sue for $500 per call, up to $1,500 if the violation was willful.
That single word, "call," is the entire fight. If a text message is a "telephone call" under that section, cold SMS to a Registry number is a lawsuit waiting to happen after the second message. If it is not, § 227(c)(5) does not reach text messages at all, and a Registry listing alone will not support that specific claim.
The Split, as of This Week
Courts have been fracturing on this question all year, and it just widened again.
Texts are not "calls" under § 227(c)(5): The Seventh Circuit was the first federal appeals court to say so, in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), reasoning that "telephone" meant an instrument for reproducing sound at the time the statute was written, and a text has no sound. The Western District of Missouri followed two weeks later in Rush v. Selectquote Insurance (W.D. Mo. July 30, 2026), joining roughly thirteen federal districts on this side. On September 3, 2026, a Middle District of North Carolina judge dismissed a class action against R.J. Reynolds on the same reasoning in Card v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, the first ruling of its kind inside the Fourth Circuit's footprint and, by most counts, the fifth circuit region now touched by this side of the split.
Texts are "calls" under § 227(c)(5): Plenty of courts disagree, including recently. In Callier v. The Finish Line (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2026), a pro se plaintiff, representing himself with no law firm behind him, beat the defendant's motion on exactly this issue. Two days later, in Owen-Brooks v. Better Homes & Gardens Real Estate (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2026), a New Jersey federal court reached the same result on a real estate marketing text sent to a Registry number.
No circuit split has reached the Supreme Court yet, and there is no petition pending as of this writing. But a disagreement spanning five circuit regions, decided by federal judges reading the identical fourteen words of the same statute two different ways, is exactly the kind of split the Court has taken up before.
Why This Doesn't Mean You Can Text the Registry
Three reasons to not treat this as a green light, even if your business is physically located in the Seventh Circuit.
It only touches one section of the TCPA. The fight above is entirely about § 227(c)(5), the Do-Not-Call private right of action. It says nothing about § 227(b), the section that requires prior express consent before you send an autodialed or prerecorded marketing call or text at all, Registry or no Registry. That provision has treated text messages as calls since the FCC's 2003 TCPA Order, and nothing in the current split disturbs that. The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed it in January, in Howard v. Republican National Committee (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026), holding that text messages are "calls" for § 227(b) purposes even while a separate part of that same opinion went the sender's way on a narrower question about embedded video. An unconsented marketing text sent with an autodialer is still full TCPA exposure nationwide, in every circuit, regardless of how that circuit reads § 227(c)(5).
You don't pick your circuit, the plaintiff does. Venue in a TCPA case generally follows where the plaintiff lives or where the text landed, not where your business is headquartered. A national text campaign hits every one of these jurisdictions at once, and a plaintiff's attorney (or, per Callier, a plaintiff acting alone with no attorney at all) will file in whichever district gives the claim the best shot. Being confident about the law in your own state does not protect you from a recipient in New Jersey.
The Registry itself is not the only exposure. § 227(c)(5) is one specific claim inside a much larger law. Autodialer restrictions, consent requirements, and state consumer-protection statutes that layer on top of the federal rule are all untouched by this fight over the word "call."
What Actually Protects You, Regardless of Circuit
Consent is the one thing that defeats both theories at once. A recipient who gave prior express consent to be texted has no § 227(b) claim, and courts on both sides of the split agree that a Registry listing does not override documented consent to be contacted by that specific business. That is the actual variable worth spending effort on, not which way your district happens to be leaning this month.
That is also where Android Texter's position on this is honest rather than promotional: we route messages as person-to-person SMS through a real, user-owned Android handset, which keeps that traffic out of the A2P 10DLC carrier gate that blocks or throttles high-risk verticals outright. That is a delivery problem, and it is the one we solve. It is not a consent problem, and this circuit split does not change that math. Whether a message is judged a "call" under § 227(c)(5) has nothing to do with what network it rode in on, P2P or A2P. TCPA consent is the sender's job either way, on every channel, in every circuit.
What to Actually Do This Week
- Scrub the National DNC Registry anyway. It costs you nothing and it takes the entire § 227(c)(5) question off the table before it starts, regardless of which way your district is currently leaning.
- Get consent and keep the record. Timestamp, method, and the specific number opted in. This is what actually defeats a TCPA claim, on either side of the split.
- Honor every opt-out automatically. STOP, UNSUBSCRIBE, CANCEL, END, and QUIT should all trigger immediate suppression, no exceptions, no manual review queue.
- Don't treat a district court ruling from another state as legal advice for your campaign. This split is moving fast, in both directions, and the district that governs your recipients today may not be the one that governs the next TCPA ruling on this question. Talk to counsel who tracks it before you change how you operate.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this split mean I can text people on the Do Not Call Registry?
No. It means one specific legal theory, a private right of action under § 227(c)(5), currently fails in roughly five circuit regions and succeeds in the rest. Consent requirements under § 227(b) apply everywhere regardless, and a plaintiff can often choose which court hears the case.
Which side currently has more courts?
Both sides count into the double digits at the district level, and the count changes every few weeks as new rulings come down. The Seventh Circuit is the only federal appeals court to rule on it so far, in the "not calls" direction; no other circuit court has weighed in yet.
What is the difference between TCPA § 227(b) and § 227(c)(5)?
§ 227(b) requires prior express consent before sending an autodialed marketing call or text to a wireless number, and applies nationwide. § 227(c)(5) is a separate private right of action tied specifically to the National Do Not Call Registry, and it is the provision currently split on whether it covers text messages at all.
Does using a P2P SMS gateway instead of Twilio change my TCPA exposure?
No, and no vendor should tell you otherwise. P2P routing through Android Texter avoids A2P 10DLC carrier registration and content filtering, which is a separate carrier-level gate. TCPA consent obligations apply to the message content and the recipient relationship, not to which network carried the text.
Will the Supreme Court resolve this?
Not yet. No petition is currently pending. A split this wide, five circuit regions disagreeing on the same sentence, is the kind of disagreement the Court has agreed to hear before, but nothing is scheduled as of this writing.
If you are texting into a vertical that Twilio and the other major aggregators won't register a campaign for, payday lending, debt collection, cannabis, wholesaling, or similar, Android Texter gets the message delivered as ordinary person-to-person SMS from a real phone instead of a blocked A2P campaign. Getting it delivered and getting consent right are two different jobs. We only do the first one.