Careers

Diversity

With 18 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Practices & Industries

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

BakerHostetler Advises Sole Bookrunner in Banzai International Public Offering

Data Counsel

State Privacy in Brief, Q2 2026

TCPA Update – Seventh Circuit Rejects Private Right of Action for Text Messages Under § 227(c)(5)

AD Nauseam

AD Nauseam: NAD Tips and Tricks 2026

core/heading

The Seventh Circuit held that the TCPA’s private right of action under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) “does not permit plaintiffs to sue for the receipt of unwanted texts.”

core/list-item

The Seventh Circuit holding is limited to TCPA claims under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5); it did not hold that text messages are not subject to § 227(b).

Text messages may nonetheless be subject to analogous state laws (i.e., “mini-TCPAs”)

core/list

Courts have been inundated with TCPA claims, often filed as proposed class actions, arising from text messages. On July 14, 2026, however, the Seventh Circuit held that the TCPA’s private right of action under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) “does not permit plaintiffs to sue for the receipt of unwanted texts.” Seth Steidinger, et al. v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026).

core/paragraph

Steidinger focuses on § 227(c)(5), which is the subsection that authorizes a private right of action for a person who receives more than one “telephone call” within a 12-month period. While other subsections in § 227(c) refer to “telephone solicitations,” which includes a “telephone call or message,” the private right of action subsection is specific to a “telephone call.” Thus, the court held that § 227(c)(5) provides a private right of action for telephone calls but not text messages.

Steidinger is an important ruling, because of both its result and its robust analysis, and will be a powerful tool in persuading courts outside the Seventh Circuit to follow the decision. But it is not a panacea for at least three reasons. First, and most obviously, it is only binding in the Seventh Circuit, and Steidinger notes that other circuit courts have found that texts are calls under a different TCPA subsection (§ 227(b)). Second, it is limited to private rights of action under § 227(c)(5) and thus does not address TCPA claims alleging text messages were sent via an automatic telephone dialing system without the requisite consent. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). Finally, state “mini-TCPAs,” which often mirror the TCPA in key respects, can include texts within their call prohibitions (e.g., Fla. Stat. 501.059(1)(j)).

Related Services

Featured Insights