TCPA Text Message Rulings Are Splitting: What ARM Compliance Teams Should Watch
For years, text messaging has seemed like one of those compliance areas where every answer leads to another question.
Can we send the text? What kind of consent do we have? What happens if the consumer replies “STOP”?
Does the TCPA apply? What about Regulation F?
And now, apparently, we have another question to add to the list:
Is a text message actually a “telephone call” under the TCPA?
That question is sitting at the center of a developing split among federal courts, and it is worth the attention of compliance teams across the accounts receivable management industry.
The rules for debt collection texting haven’t suddenly disappeared. What has changed is the legal environment around those rules. And that may require compliance teams to start thinking about text-message risk a little differently.
Two Cases, Two Very Different Answers
The latest discussion started with the Seventh Circuit’s July 14, 2026, decision in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services.
The case involved marketing communications, including text messages. The plaintiffs argued that those texts supported a private claim under Section 227(c)(5) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the provision that allows consumers to sue after receiving more than one prohibited “telephone call” within a 12-month period.
The Seventh Circuit disagreed.
Its conclusion was relatively straightforward: Congress used the words “telephone call” in that portion of the statute, and the court did not believe those words included text messages.
For businesses facing TCPA litigation, that is a meaningful ruling.
But then came Owen-Brooks v. Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate.
On August 21, 2026, a federal district court in New Jersey considered a similar question involving allegedly unsolicited marketing texts and reached a different conclusion. That court allowed the Section 227(c) claim to continue.
So within a matter of weeks, businesses were looking at two courts taking different approaches to essentially the same underlying issue. That is where the story becomes more interesting for compliance teams.
The Bigger Story Is Not Whether a Text Is a Call
It would be easy to look at Steidinger and walk away with a headline like:
Seventh Circuit Says TCPA Do Not Call Rules Don’t Apply to Texts.
But that is far too broad. The ruling dealt with a specific TCPA private right of action. It did not declare text messages unregulated. It did not erase FCC requirements. And it certainly did not remove the collection-specific requirements ARM companies already manage under Regulation F.
The bigger development is that TCPA interpretation is becoming less uniform.
That matters because compliance programs tend to work best when there is one understandable standard.
Businesses want to know what the rule is, build a process around it, train employees, configure technology, and document the controls.
Court splits make that harder.
A practice that creates a strong legal defense in Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin may face a different analysis somewhere else. For national ARM organizations, that is not simply an interesting legal distinction. It affects how risk is evaluated.
Debt Collection Texts Have Another Layer
There is another reason compliance teams should be careful about reading too much into Steidinger.
The communications involved in the case were marketing communications. Debt collection communications are different.
A straightforward message about an existing account generally is not the same thing as a telephone solicitation encouraging someone to buy a product or service. But that does not mean collectors can stop worrying about texting rules.
Far from it.
Debt collectors operate inside another framework: Regulation F.
Regulation F expressly addresses electronic communications, including text messages. It requires debt collectors using electronic communications to provide consumers with a clear and simple way to opt out.
“Reply STOP to stop texts” is a familiar example.
The rule also restricts collectors from continuing to communicate through a particular medium when the consumer has asked them not to use it, subject to limited exceptions. There are also considerations involving wrong-party contacts, reassigned telephone numbers, and the risk of disclosing information to someone other than the consumer.
None of that changed because the Seventh Circuit adopted a narrower interpretation of one TCPA provision. And that distinction is critical.
A Legal Defense Is Not the Same Thing as a Compliance Strategy
This may be the most useful lesson coming out of these cases.
Compliance teams regularly review court decisions looking for changes that could affect policies and procedures. That is exactly what they should be doing. But every favorable decision does not necessarily require an operational change.
Sometimes a decision changes the organization’s litigation position without changing the company’s operational processes.
That is particularly true here.
Even if a collector could make a stronger argument against a certain TCPA claim in the Seventh Circuit, it would still need to consider the FDCPA, Regulation F, TCPA provisions, FCC rules, state laws, consent history, client agreements, consumer communication preferences, and its own policies before changing how texts are sent.
As Sara Burton, President of ARM Compliance Business Solutions, puts it,
“A favorable court decision may change your litigation strategy, but it shouldn’t automatically change your compliance strategy. Before changing how you communicate with consumers, you still have to consider consent, consumer preferences, FDCPA, Regulation F, state law, and the other controls you’ve built around that communication.”
That mindset becomes even more important when different courts are reaching different conclusions.
Compliance Teams May Need Two Maps
ARM organizations increasingly need two maps for text-message compliance. The first is the litigation map.
- Where does the consumer live?
- Which federal circuit applies?
- How are courts in that jurisdiction interpreting the TCPA?
- Are there state laws creating separate exposure?
After Steidinger and Owen-Brooks, those questions may matter more than they did before.
The second is the operational map. That one asks different questions.
- Why are we sending this message?
- Do we have the appropriate consent?
- Is the number still associated with the consumer?
- Has the consumer asked us to stop texting?
- Are opt-outs being captured across systems?
- Does the message remain purely collection-related, or has marketing content entered the conversation?
The litigation map tells you what arguments may be available when something goes wrong. The operational map helps prevent something from going wrong in the first place.
What Should ARM Compliance Teams Do Now?
Probably not overhaul their texting policies because of one appellate decision. But they should be watching what happens next.
The disagreement between Steidinger and Owen-Brooks is another sign that TCPA litigation involving texts may become more jurisdiction-specific.
For national organizations, that makes coordination between compliance and legal teams even more important. It is also a good time to review the basics: consent documentation, opt-out processing, suppression controls, reassigned-number procedures, message classification, and state-specific requirements.
Most importantly, compliance teams should resist the temptation to treat a narrower path to liability as a broader permission to communicate.
There is a difference between “We may have a defense to this lawsuit” and “This is how we should design our consumer communication program.”
The courts may continue debating whether a text technically counts as a telephone call under one section of the TCPA. For ARM organizations, the safer question remains much more practical:
Are we sending the right message, to the right person, through the right channel, with the consumer’s choices built into the process?
That is the standard compliance teams can control, regardless of which court weighs in next.
