Alabama Federal Court Rules Texts Are Not Calls Under TCPA Do-Not-Call Provision
Case Snapshot
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
- Case: Conrad v. Hart Consumer Products Inc., No. 4:24-cv-307-CLM
- Decision Date: Sept. 16, 2026
- Core Issue: Whether SMS messages constitute “telephone calls” under Section 227(c)(5)
- Key Allegation: Conrad alleged Hart sent advertising texts to a number on the National Do Not Call Registry
- Court Holding: Text messages are not “telephone calls” under the private right of action
- Outcome: Complaint dismissed with prejudice
- Notable Detail: The court followed the Seventh Circuit’s interpretation in Steidinger.
A federal court in Alabama has joined a growing number of courts holding that text messages are not “telephone calls” covered by the private right of action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s do-not-call provisions.
In Conrad v. Hart Consumer Products Inc., U.S. District Judge Corey Maze of the Northern District of Alabama granted Hart Consumer Products’ motion to dismiss Sept. 16, finding that SMS messages do not qualify as telephone calls under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). The decision adds another federal district to a developing split over TCPA text message claims.
Court Finds Statutory Language Excludes Texts
Plaintiff Michael Conrad alleged Hart sent advertising texts to his cellphone after his number had been placed on the National Do Not Call Registry.
The court examined the ordinary meaning of “telephone call” when Congress enacted the TCPA in 1991 and concluded the term referred to communication involving sound.
Maze also pointed to the statute’s different terminology. The TCPA defines “telephone solicitation” using the phrase “telephone call or message,” while Section 227(c)(5)’s private right of action refers specifically to receiving more than one “telephone call.”
The court followed the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, which similarly held that text messages are not telephone calls for purposes of Section 227(c)(5).
“Until Congress broadens § 227(c)(5)’s right of action to the receipt of ‘text messages’ or all ‘text solicitations,’ Conrad has no personal right of action in this court,” Maze wrote.
The complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
For ARM companies and other businesses using SMS communications, the ruling adds the Northern District of Alabama to the federal courts adopting the narrower interpretation of Section 227(c)(5). The issue remains divided among federal courts.
