TCPA Ruling Expands Do Not Call Liability to Text Messages and Cell Phones
Case Snapshot
- Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
- Case: Rabbitt v. Rohrman Midwest Motors, Inc.
- Decision Date: March 27, 2026
- Core Issue: Whether TCPA private right of action under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) applies to text messages and cellular phones
- Key Allegation: Plaintiff alleges unsolicited telemarketing text messages were sent after registration on the National Do Not Call Registry
- Court Holding: TCPA § 227(c)(5) applies to text messages and to cellular phone users
- Outcome: Motion to dismiss denied
- Notable Detail: Court applies post-Loper Bright independent statutory interpretation and reinforces prior precedent treating texts as calls
Court Interprets TCPA to Cover Text Messaging Under ‘Do Not Call’ Rules
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss in a putative class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s ‘Do Not Call’ provisions, allowing the case to proceed.
The plaintiff alleged that a car dealership sent multiple unsolicited telemarketing text messages after her number was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. The defendant argued that the private right of action under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) does not extend to text messages and applies only to traditional voice calls.
The court rejected that interpretation, concluding that § 227(c)(5) must be read alongside § 227(c)(1), which directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate “telephone solicitations.” The statute defines that term to include “the initiation of a telephone call or message,” which the court found supports inclusion of text messaging within the statutory framework.
Applying the independent judicial review standard outlined in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. rather than deferring to agency interpretation, the court determined that the broader statutory scheme supports coverage of text messages. At the same time, it gave persuasive weight to FCC rulemaking, including the agency’s 2024 amendment to 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), which explicitly applies Do Not Call regulations to text messages sent to wireless numbers.
The court also relied on statutory stare decisis, noting that prior appellate and Supreme Court precedent has treated text messages as “calls” under the TCPA and that Congress did not alter that interpretation when it amended the statute in 2018.
Cell Phones Recognized as Protected “Residential Subscribers”
The defendant also argued that § 227(c)(5) applies only to residential landlines and excludes cellular phones. The court rejected that position.
Although the statute refers to “residential telephone subscribers,” the court found the term broad enough to include wireless users. The decision aligns with long-standing FCC interpretations extending Do Not Call protections to cell phones and reflects modern consumer behavior, where mobile devices often serve as the primary or sole telephone line.
The court cited additional district court decisions recognizing that excluding wireless users would leave a substantial portion of consumers without protection. That outcome would conflict with the TCPA’s purpose of safeguarding consumer privacy from unwanted solicitations.
Procedural Outcome Keeps Class Action in Play
The court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged TCPA violations by claiming:
- Registration on the National Do Not Call Registry
- Receipt of multiple unsolicited telemarketing texts
- Repeated contact within a 12-month period
With those allegations deemed sufficient, the motion to dismiss was denied and the case will proceed, preserving its posture as a putative class action.
Why This Matters for the Receivables Industry
Text messaging continues to fall squarely within TCPA exposure when used for solicitation or marketing purposes. Courts are consistently aligning statutory interpretation with FCC regulations that explicitly include SMS communications.
Arguments limiting ‘Do Not Call’ protections to landlines are losing traction. This decision reinforces that mobile numbers are treated as protected endpoints, particularly where consumers rely on them as their primary contact method.
Multi-touch outreach strategies carry elevated risk under § 227(c)(5), which allows a private right of action after more than one violation within a 12-month period. Repeated contact campaigns tied to marketing or solicitation activity should be carefully reviewed.
The post-Loper Bright landscape has shifted how courts approach agency interpretation, but it has not narrowed TCPA exposure. Courts are independently reaching conclusions that preserve broad application of the statute, especially where regulatory guidance is consistent and longstanding.
For creditors, debt buyers, and collection agencies, the compliance takeaway is operational. Text messaging programs tied to consumer outreach must be evaluated under Do Not Call rules with the same rigor applied to voice communications, particularly when engaging consumers who may be listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.
