Florida Court Rules Texts Aren’t “Calls” Under TCPA’s DNC Rules

Your phone buzzes. You glance down. It’s not your friend. It’s not your mom. It’s not even that one group chat
that never dies. It’s a marketing text: “FLASH SALE 🔥 Reply YES!”

If you’re a consumer, your eye twitches. If you’re a marketer, you’re thinking, “Did we have consent?” If you’re a
lawyer, you’re thinking, “How many digits are in the class size?”

Now add a Florida twist: two federal courts in Florida have said that for one specific part of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)the Do-Not-Call (DNC) private lawsuit provisiona text message is not a
“telephone call.” Translation: some DNC claims based only on marketing texts can get tossed before the case
even starts doing that “class certification” dance.

Let’s unpack what happened, why it matters, what other courts are doing (spoiler: they’re not all agreeing), and
how to run SMS marketing without starring in a lawsuit.

The TCPA DNC Rules in Plain English (No Latin, Promise)

What Section 227(c) is trying to do

The TCPA is a federal law that (among other things) tries to protect people from unwanted telemarketing. One part
of itSection 227(c)centers on do-not-call protections. If a consumer puts a number on the National Do Not Call
Registry, telemarketers generally can’t reach out with “telephone solicitations” unless an exception applies.

Two important realities make this area messy:

• There are different TCPA “lanes.” The law covers autodialed/prerecorded calls and texts (often litigated under Section 227(b)) and also DNC-related restrictions (often litigated under Section 227(c)).
• The private lawsuit hook is narrow. For DNC claims, the statute’s private right of action uses the phrase “telephone call,” and that wording is the entire battlefield.

National DNC Registry vs. company-specific “Stop calling me”

People often mash these together, but they’re different in practice:

• National Do Not Call Registry (national DNC). You register your number, and telemarketers are
  expected to scrub their lists against the registry.
• Company-specific do-not-call list (internal DNC). You tell that company “stop,” and it
  must honor the request within the required timeframe (and keep records).

In the SMS world, “STOP” is the modern equivalent of slamming the receiver down. If your system treats it like a
polite suggestion, you’re playing lawsuit roulette.

Why plaintiffs love these cases: the math

The TCPA’s statutory damages are a key reason class actions happen. Depending on the claim type, a plaintiff can
seek statutory damages per violation (often framed as $500 per violation, with the possibility of trebling to
$1,500 for willful or knowing conduct). Multiply by thousands of messages, and suddenly a “tiny campaign” becomes
a “large settlement meeting.”

Regulators can also pursue significant penalties under related rules, with inflation-adjusted civil penalty
maximums that hover in the “tens of thousands per violation” range for certain unlawful practices. (Yes, your
compliance officer just sat up straighter.)

The Florida Rulings: Why Texts Aren’t “Calls” (At Least Here)

Davis v. CVS Pharmacy (Northern District of Florida)

In Davis v. CVS Pharmacy (N.D. Fla., Aug. 26, 2025), the plaintiff alleged CVS sent marketing
texts to a number listed on the National DNC Registry. The complaint leaned on the DNC private right of action,
which allows suit if a person receives more than one “telephone call” in a 12-month period in violation of DNC
regulations.

The court dismissed the DNC claim becausereading the statute’s words as writtena text message is not a
“telephone call.” The reasoning wasn’t fancy. It was basically:
No ordinary person calls a text message a phone call.

El Sayed v. Naturopathica (Middle District of Florida)

A second Florida federal court followed the same logic in El Sayed v. Naturopathica Holistic Health
(M.D. Fla., Oct. 24, 2025). The facts felt painfully familiar: promotional texts, a “STOP” reply, an unsubscribe
confirmation, and thenplot twistmore marketing texts anyway.

The court agreed that “telephone call” and “text message” are distinct in common American English. It also noted
that Congress has used language elsewhere that distinguishes calls from text messagessuggesting that when
Congress wants to include texts, it knows how to say so.

One practical takeaway: these Florida decisions didn’t “bless spam.” They focused on a specific legal question:
whether the statutory phrase “telephone call” in the DNC private lawsuit provision includes texts. The court said
no.

But WaitDidn’t the FCC Say Texts Count as Calls?

Yes… and also it’s complicated, because the legal world enjoys nothing more than a good argument over a single
word.

For years, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has treated SMS messages like “calls” for many TCPA
purposes. As far back as early TCPA rulemaking, the FCC interpreted the TCPA to encompass both voice calls and
“text calls” to wireless numbers. More recently, the FCC adopted rules aimed at unlawful text messages and
reinforced that the National DNC Registry’s protections apply to marketing texts to wireless numbersrequiring
“prior express invitation or permission” before sending a marketing text to a wireless number on the registry.

So why are Florida courts shrugging at that? Because of a Supreme Court shift that changed how much “automatic
deference” lower courts must give to agency interpretations.

The McLaughlin & Loper Bright effect: no more autopilot deference

Two modern Supreme Court decisions changed the terrain:

• Loper Bright (2024) emphasized that courts must exercise independent judgment when interpreting
  statutes.
• McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson (2025) underscored that district courts are not bound to
  treat FCC interpretations of the TCPA as controlling in the way many litigants had argued for years.

In plain terms: after these decisions, some judges feel freer to say, “Thanks, FCC, but I’m going to read the
statute myself.”

Why This Is Suddenly a Big Deal: The Nationwide Split

Florida isn’t alone in wrestling with whether a text is a “call” for DNC private lawsuit purposes. Courts outside
Florida have landed on both sides.

Courts saying “texts aren’t calls” (for DNC private suits)

A key early decision in this modern wave came from Illinois in Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services
(C.D. Ill., July 21, 2025), which similarly treated “telephone call” as meaning a voice callnot a text message
for the DNC private right of action. That case has been headed toward appellate review, and the industry is
watching closely because a circuit court opinion could bring real uniformity (or at least a louder argument).

Courts saying “texts are calls” (and DNC claims can proceed)

Other courts have continued to treat marketing texts as within the DNC orbitoften relying on the TCPA’s consumer
protection purpose, prior FCC guidance, and broader readings of “call.” Some courts have pointed to the reality
that, functionally, a marketing text is a modern “telephone solicitation” delivered through the phone network.

Even within Florida’s broader orbit, courts have not sung in perfect harmony. For example, decisions like
Bosley v. A Bradley Hospitality (S.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2025) have been discussed as taking a
different view in related DNC contexts. Outside Florida, courts like those in California and Illinois have issued
rulings leaning the opposite direction as well, deepening the split.

So… Does This Mean You Can Text DNC Numbers Now?

If your takeaway is “Florida said I can text whoever I want,” please step away from the campaign dashboard.
Slowly.

Here’s the safer, more accurate takeaway:

• These rulings narrow one pathway for private lawsuits. They focus on the DNC private right of
  action and its “telephone call” wording.
• They do not erase other TCPA risks. Texts can still trigger liability under other TCPA
  provisions (like those governing consent for autodialed marketing texts), and they can trigger claims under
  state telemarketing and privacy laws.
• Regulators still exist. FCC/FTC enforcement doesn’t vanish because one court read one phrase
  narrowly. And the FCC has actively been modernizing its approach to unlawful texts.

Think of it like this: You might have found a door that’s locked in one courthouse hallway. The building still
has plenty of other doors. Some are automatic. Some have security cameras.

What Marketers Should Do Right Now: A Practical SMS Compliance Playbook

1) Treat consent like a receipt you’ll need later

If you can’t prove where consent came from, a judge may assume it came from the Land of Make-Believe. Keep records
of:

• the web form or text keyword used to opt in
• the language shown at the moment of consent
• timestamp, IP/device data (where appropriate), and the phone number captured
• the specific brand/seller the consumer agreed to hear from

Bonus points for not burying “marketing partners” in a hyperlink the size of an ant.

2) Make “STOP” work even when your system is having a bad day

Courts don’t love stories that begin with “They texted STOP and then got more texts.” Build belt-and-suspenders
handling for opt-outs:

• recognize common variants (“Stop,” “STOP!!!,” “unsubscribe,” “end”)
• apply opt-outs across all campaigns for that brand (unless clearly segmented and properly disclosed)
• process suppression quickly and consistently, including through vendors

3) Scrub against DNC lists and keep a suppression list anyway

Even if a particular court says DNC private suits for texts don’t work, compliance best practices still point to
scrubbing. The cost of scrubbing is often far cheaper than the cost of defending a lawsuiteven a lawsuit you
eventually win.

Maintain your own “do-not-contact” suppression list and honor it across:

• SMS
• voice calls
• vendors/affiliates
• retargeting workflows that “accidentally” re-import suppressed numbers

4) Control your vendors like you control your brand voice

A lot of TCPA pain comes from “someone else did it.” Affiliate marketers, lead generators, texting platforms,
agenciesif they touch your outbound program, they can touch your risk.

• audit consent language and lead sources
• require contract terms on TCPA compliance and indemnification
• test opt-out flows end-to-end
• monitor complaint rates and carrier feedback

5) Keep your messages logically related (and not creepy)

Even when consent exists, mismatched messaging is where trouble starts. If someone opts in for “appointment
reminders,” don’t pivot into “BUY NOW” like you’re a late-night infomercial host who just discovered emojis.

Quick Examples: What Still Gets People Sued

• Re-texting after STOP. One “oops” might be forgivable; patterns are expensive.
• Lead-gen consent that’s too broad. If the consumer never clearly agreed to hear from your brand,
  you’re holding a consent-shaped object that may be made of papier-mâché.
• Reassigned numbers. You thought you had consent; the phone carrier thought otherwise; the new
  owner of the number thinks you’re a villain in their origin story.
• High-volume blasts without solid proof. Volume amplifies risk, especially when the campaign is
  promotional and the audience is broad.

What to Watch Next (Because This Story Isn’t Over)

A few developments will likely shape where this lands:

• Appellate decisions. When circuit courts weigh in (especially on cases like Jones), the split
  could narrowor get louder.
• FCC rulemaking and enforcement. The FCC has been active on illegal texting and consent-related
  rules, and its positions will keep influencing litigation arguments even if they aren’t automatically binding.
• State law growth. States continue to pass and enforce their own mini-TCPA style statutes, which
  can matter even if a federal DNC claim stumbles.

Also worth noting: in the Davis matter, an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit was filed and later voluntarily
dismissed in October 2025meaning this exact Florida ruling didn’t get an immediate appellate “final answer” at
that time. So the debate remains very much alive.

Conclusion

Florida’s “texts aren’t calls” rulings are a big deal, but not a free pass. They narrow one slice of TCPA DNC
private litigation, and they highlight a growing national split about how old statutory wording should apply to
modern communication.

The smart move for businesses isn’t to celebrate; it’s to simplify compliance: get clear consent,
honor opt-outs fast, document everything, and treat DNC scrubbing and suppression as standard operating
procedurenot optional accessories.

And if you’re a consumer? Keep that “STOP” thumb warmed up. It’s basically your spam shield with a keyboard.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice.

Real-World Experiences from the “Texts Aren’t Calls” Front Lines (Approx. )

Even without stepping into anyone’s conference room, you can spot the same patterns over and over in TCPA
disputesespecially the ones that start as “It was just a couple of texts” and end as “Why is everyone suddenly
talking about statutory interpretation?”

Experience pattern #1: The “We have consent… somewhere” moment. A brand launches a sleek SMS
program through a third-party platform. The opt-in flow looks modern, the copy is punchy, and the conversion
rate is chef’s-kiss. Then a complaint arrives, and the team tries to trace the consent record like it’s a
treasure map drawn on a napkin. What usually went wrong? The business relied on a lead source that didn’t
preserve the exact consent language shown to the consumer at the moment of opt-in. In litigation, “we usually do
it right” is not evidence. Screenshots, timestamps, and seller-specific disclosures are evidence.

Experience pattern #2: Opt-outs break in the seamsright where vendors connect. Many programs
correctly process “STOP” inside the main texting platform, but fail when a separate tool is feeding audiences
into campaigns (CRM, CDP, loyalty system, agency-managed list, affiliate pipeline). The result is a zombie
contact record that keeps getting resurrected and re-messaged. Teams that avoid this usually treat suppression as
a “master data” function: one suppression list, synced everywhere, with automated checks that block uploads of
suppressed numbers.

Experience pattern #3: The campaign’s tone creates risk faster than the legal team can react.
Promotional urgency (“Last chance!” “Act now!”) paired with high frequency turns mild annoyance into formal
complaints. When the recipient is on the National DNC Registry, that annoyance can become a DNC allegation; when
the recipient says “STOP,” it can become the centerpiece of a pleading. The best programs use frequency caps,
quiet hours, and content rules that separate transactional texts from marketing texts with bright neon lines.

Experience pattern #4: Legal wins don’t always feel like wins. Suppose you’re in a jurisdiction
where a court reads “telephone call” narrowly for DNC private suits. Great! Except you still spent money to get
there, and your brand still took a reputational hit. That’s why many compliance teams treat the Florida rulings
as an interesting legal developmentnot a new strategy. They keep scrubbing numbers, honoring opt-outs, and
tightening consent flows because (a) other courts disagree, (b) other TCPA provisions may still apply, and (c)
state laws can be just as punchy.

The most useful “experience” takeaway is boring on purpose: compliance that’s consistent across voice and text is
easier to maintain than compliance that changes depending on which courthouse is currently trending. If your
policies can survive in the strictest jurisdictions, you don’t have to rebuild them every time a new ruling drops.
And you can spend your energy on marketing, instead of explaining to a judge why your database thinks “STOP” means
“send two more reminders, just to be sure.”