Are unsolicited marketing texts illegal?

The Legal Reality: What Courts and the FCC Say Right Now

If you text a customer on the Do Not Call Registry, can they sue you? For businesses in three states, the answer just changed — but not in the way most marketers assume.

In July 2026, the Seventh Circuit ruled in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that text messages are not "telephone calls" under TCPA Section 227(c)(5). Holland & Knight's analysis notes the court relied on the plain meaning of the statute at its 1991 enactment, eliminating private do-not-call claims for texts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin — even for DNC Registry registrants or consumers who texted "STOP."

Before you relax, though: the same ruling explicitly confirms that texts sent via autodialer technology remain actionable under TCPA Section 227(b)(3). The court's own guidance is that companies should continue complying with Section 227(b) and applicable state laws. The do-not-call door narrowed; the autodialer door is wide open.

Meanwhile, the FCC is pulling in the opposite direction. Its December 2023 order extends National Do Not Call Registry protections to marketing texts, effective 30 days after Federal Register publication. Texting a DNC-listed number now requires prior express invitation or permission.

The regulatory tension doesn't stop there. In January 2025, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC's one-to-one consent rule in Insurance Mktg. Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, holding the agency exceeded its statutory authority. The court found "prior express consent" only requires a consumer to clearly and unmistakably state willingness to receive the robocall — not consent to each specific seller.

So what must businesses actually navigate right now?

• Autodialer-sent texts require prior express written consent under Section 227(b), regardless of circuit splits
• DNC-listed numbers still can't be texted without permission under FCC rules, even where private claims are narrowed
• Statutory damages of $500–$1,500 per violation, per consumer, apply without proof of actual injury
• The Seventh Circuit's textualist reasoning may spread to other circuits, creating a potential Supreme Court showdown

That $500–$1,500 per-violation exposure is why Cooley warns the TCPA remains a major source of class action litigation. And the FTC adds another layer: companies that "know or consciously avoid knowing" about partners' telemarketing violations can face Telemarketing Sales Rule liability for substantial assistance.

This is why documentation matters as much as consent itself. GrowthPros attaches a consent record — disclosure text, timestamp, IP address, and named contacting party — to every lead it delivers, and scrubs lists against the DNC Registry before any outbound contact. When the rules shift between circuits and agencies, the businesses that survive scrutiny are the ones that can prove what they did and when.

The short answer to "are unsolicited texts illegal?" remains: mostly yes, in specific and expensive ways — and the exceptions are narrower than the headlines suggest.

Where the Real Liability Lives: Autodialers, Consent, and Damages

Recent court rulings have narrowed certain TCPA liability avenues, but significant compliance obligations remain for businesses sending marketing texts. While the Seventh Circuit determined that text messages do not qualify as "telephone calls" under TCPA Section 227(c)(5), eliminating private do-not-call claims in its jurisdiction, it explicitly confirmed that texts sent via autodialer or artificial/prerecorded voice technology remain actionable under TCPA Section 227(b)(3). This distinction means companies must still evaluate whether their texting platforms meet the legal definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS), as liability persists for violations of this provision regardless of do-not-call claim availability.

Statutory damages under the TCPA continue to pose substantial financial exposure, with penalties ranging from $500 to $1,500 per violation per consumer—and critically, these apply without requiring proof of actual injury. This structure maintains high class action risks, particularly for high-volume text campaigns where even technical compliance gaps can multiply rapidly across thousands of recipients. The FCC’s December 2023 order further reinforces these obligations by extending National Do Not Call Registry protections to marketing text messages, effective 30 days after Federal Register publication, thereby requiring prior express invitation or permission before texting any DNC-registered number.

Compliance hinges on securing prior express written consent that includes two specific disclosures: clear consumer authorization for the seller to deliver telemarketing calls or texts via autodialer or artificial/prerecorded voice technology, and a statement that consent is not a condition of purchasing goods or services. GrowthPros embeds these requirements into its lead delivery process, ensuring every lead carries a consent record containing the disclosure text, timestamp, IP address, and named contacting party—elements vital for demonstrating adherence to both TCPA and FTC standards. The FTC has intensified scrutiny of lead generators, warning that companies can be held accountable for facilitating partners’ unlawful telemarketing conduct if they "know or consciously avoid knowing" of violations while providing substantial assistance. This principle elevates the importance of verifiable consent documentation, not just for direct TCPA defense but also to mitigate downstream liability in the lead generation ecosystem. Maintaining rigorous consent practices remains essential as regulatory interpretations evolve and enforcement agencies adapt their strategies to address emerging marketing technologies.

• TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500–$1,500 per violation, per consumer, without requiring proof of actual injury
• Prior express written consent must include consumer authorization for delivery via ATDS or artificial/prerecorded voice and a statement that consent isn’t a purchase condition
• The FCC’s order extends National DNC Registry protections to marketing text messages, effective 30 days after Federal Register publication

Building a Compliant Text Operation: Consent Records, DNC Scrubbing, and Opt-Outs

The legal ground under text marketing keeps shifting, but the compliance fundamentals haven't moved. Courts have narrowed some TCPA claims — the Seventh Circuit ruled in July 2026 that texts aren't "telephone calls" under Section 227(c)(5), eliminating private do-not-call claims in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin — yet the same decision confirms autodialer-sent texts remain actionable under Section 227(b)(3). Meanwhile, the FCC extended National Do Not Call Registry protections to marketing texts, requiring prior express invitation or permission before texting registered numbers, effective 30 days after Federal Register publication.

Statutory damages of $500–$1,500 per violation, per consumer apply without proof of actual injury, keeping class-action risk high. The FTC has also warned that companies facilitating unlawful telemarketing by "know[ing] or consciously avoid[ing] knowing" of partners' violations can face liability under the Telemarketing Sales Rule. GrowthPros builds every lead operation around a consent framework designed to satisfy both TCPA and FTC scrutiny while preserving speed-to-lead.

• Document consent with disclosure text, timestamp, IP address, and the named contacting party — every lead carries this trail
• Scrub against the National DNC Registry before any outbound contact, not after
• Honor opt-outs immediately and permanently across SMS, voice, and email channels
• Restrict reactivation campaigns to pre-existing, opted-in relationships only — never cold lists

Prior express written consent must include consumer authorization for delivery via ATDS or artificial/prerecorded voice and a clear statement that consent isn't a condition of purchase, per FCC requirements. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC's one-to-one consent rule in January 2025, but circuit splits persist and Supreme Court review remains possible. The safest path forward is a consent trail that withstands any interpretation — recorded at capture, scrubbed before send, honored without exception.

What's Next: Circuit Splits, Supreme Court Risk, and Staying Ahead

The text-message liability landscape is fracturing in real time, and the fault line runs straight through the federal courts. Businesses that treat recent narrowing rulings as permission to relax are making a costly bet against a legal system still in motion.

In July 2026, the Seventh Circuit held in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that text messages are not "telephone calls" under TCPA Section 227(c)(5), eliminating private do-not-call claims for texts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Yet the same court confirmed that texts sent via autodialer technology may still give rise to liability under Section 227(b)(3). That creates a direct collision with the FCC, which has extended National Do Not Call Registry protections to marketing texts, requiring prior express invitation or permission before texting DNC-registered consumers.

The one-to-one consent rule adds another layer of uncertainty. The Eleventh Circuit vacated it in January 2025, holding the FCC exceeded its statutory authority, but the FCC postponed the effective date rather than abandoning the rule entirely. Legal observers note that TCPA regulations remain subject to change and class action risks persist, with statutory damages of $500–$1,500 per violation, per consumer — no proof of injury required. A circuit split this sharp is exactly the kind of conflict that invites Supreme Court review, and a nationwide ruling could reshape text-message liability overnight.

Until the courts settle it, the practical playbook is straightforward:

• Maintain autodialer compliance for all automated texts, since Section 227(b) liability survived the Seventh Circuit's ruling.
• Honor DNC protections for texts, scrubbing lists before any outbound campaign.
• Document consent rigorously — disclosure text, timestamps, and the named contacting party — because the FTC holds companies accountable when they "know or consciously avoid knowing" of partners' violations.
• Monitor FCC guidance and circuit developments, especially outside the Seventh Circuit's jurisdiction.

This is why GrowthPros builds its compliance framework the way it does: every lead carries a full consent record, lists are DNC-scrubbed before contact, and FCC one-to-one consent direction is built in from day one — not bolted on after a rule takes effect. Reactivation campaigns target only pre-existing, opted-in relationships, never cold lists.

The deeper point is that proactive compliance is a competitive advantage in a shifting legal landscape. While competitors scramble to retrofit consent trails after an adverse ruling or an FTC enforcement action, businesses with clean documentation from the start can keep marketing at full speed. As one FTC enforcement action against a lead generator made clear, a company can't avoid responsibility for deception it facilitates by intentionally burying its head in the sand. The safest position in an unsettled legal environment is the one that satisfies the strictest plausible interpretation — because when the Supreme Court finally weighs in, that's the standard most likely to survive.