Recent Court Decisions in Federal and State Do Not Call Registry Cases: Key Rulings from 2025–2026
Do Not Call (DNC) litigation under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), and parallel state statutes remains active. Courts continue to address whether text messages qualify as “telephone calls,” whether cell phones count as “residential” lines, and how far private rights of action extend. Below are four recent, verifiable decisions that illustrate the current landscape. Outcomes include both plaintiff-favorable procedural rulings and defense victories.
1. Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services
Citation: No. 25-2398, 2026 WL 2028517 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026) Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Issue Presented: Whether unwanted marketing text messages constitute “telephone calls” under the private right of action in 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) for violations of the National Do Not Call Registry rules.
The Seventh Circuit held that text messages are not “telephone calls” within the meaning of § 227(c)(5). The court relied on the ordinary public meaning of the term at the time of the TCPA’s 1991 enactment and the statutory structure distinguishing “telephone call” from the broader term “telephone solicitation.” This is the first federal appellate decision to resolve the issue after the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. The ruling affirmed dismissal of the plaintiffs’ federal DNC claims based solely on text messages.
2. Northern District of Illinois Decision Allowing DNC Text Claims to Proceed
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (decision reported May 2026) Issue Presented: Whether the TCPA’s Do Not Call private right of action under § 227(c)(5) covers telemarketing text messages sent to cell phones registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, and whether cell phones qualify as “residential telephone subscribers.”
The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss a putative class action. It held that § 227(c)(5) must be read in light of the broader statutory scheme, including the definition of “telephone solicitation,” and that cell-phone subscribers can qualify as residential subscribers when the phone is used for personal, household purposes. The decision allowed the plaintiff’s DNC claims based on text messages to proceed past the pleading stage.
3. McGonigle v. Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc.
Citation: No. 1:25-cv-01062, 2026 WL 2114507 (E.D. Va. July 22, 2026) Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Issue Presented: Whether a cell phone registered on the National Do Not Call Registry can be treated as a “residential” telephone for purposes of the TCPA’s Do Not Call provisions when the plaintiff receives unsolicited promotional text messages.
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that DNC protections apply only to traditional residential landlines. It held that a cell phone used primarily for personal and household purposes may plausibly qualify as a residential telephone subscriber under § 227(c). The ruling allowed the plaintiff’s claims to continue.
4. Davis v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
Citation: 797 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2025) Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida Issue Presented: Whether text messages sent to a number on the National Do Not Call Registry support a private claim under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).
The court held that a text message is not a “telephone call” under the ordinary meaning of the statutory language as understood in 1991. It granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the DNC claims based solely on text messages, joining a growing number of district courts that have reached the same conclusion after McLaughlin.
Current Landscape
These decisions show a clear circuit and district split. The Seventh Circuit and several district courts (including in Florida, Georgia, and Ohio) have limited the federal DNC private right of action to actual voice calls. Other courts continue to treat text messages as covered and treat cell phones as residential lines for DNC purposes. State mini-TCPA statutes (such as Florida’s Telephone Solicitation Act and Texas’s telemarketing provisions) remain independent sources of potential liability and are often pleaded alongside federal claims.
All facts above are drawn from the published opinions and contemporaneous case reporting. Outcomes turn on the specific statutory language at issue, the form of the communication (call versus text), and the governing circuit’s approach to statutory interpretation after the end of Chevron deference.
This overview is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a licensed attorney regarding any specific claim.