People in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin can no longer bring federal do-not-call or quiet-hours lawsuits over marketing texts after the Seventh Circuit held on July 14, 2026, in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, that a text message is not a “telephone call” under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). The ruling binds no other region, and it leaves voice calls, the TCPA’s separate autodialer provision and state texting laws untouched.
Court Ruling · Pending Cases Are Allegations Only
This article explains a federal appeals court decision and how it may affect pending lawsuits. Claims made in the lawsuits mentioned here are unproven allegations, and no company named has been found liable. There is nothing to claim from this ruling. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act lets people sue telemarketers who keep contacting numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, or who ignore the FCC’s quiet-hours rule, through a private right of action in 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). That provision refers to anyone who receives more than one “telephone call” within a year in violation of the FCC’s rules. For years, plaintiffs have used it to sue over marketing texts as well as calls.On July 14, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected that reading in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398. The plaintiffs had received marketing texts urging them to buy home sleep tests, replied “STOP,” were on the Do-Not-Call Registry and kept getting messages. The court, in an opinion by Judge Kirsch joined by Judges Pryor and Maldonado, held that § 227(c)(5) “does not permit plaintiffs to sue for the receipt of unwanted texts,” and affirmed the dismissal of the case.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What the Court Decided
The panel asked what “telephone call” meant when Congress wrote the TCPA in 1991. Relying on dictionaries from that era, it concluded that a telephone was an instrument for reproducing sounds at a distance and a call was a spoken communication by telephone. Because a text does not reproduce sound, the court said texts “are better understood as messages, not calls.” It also pointed to surrounding provisions of § 227 that, in its reading, treat calls as voice communications.Three counterarguments did not change the result:
- FCC rules. The FCC has extended its do-not-call protections to texts. The court held that this did not control the meaning of § 227(c)(5), which speaks of calls, and it decided the statutory question for itself rather than deferring to the agency.
- The Supreme Court’s Campbell-Ewald decision. That 2016 opinion described a text as a “call” under a different subsection, § 227(b). The Seventh Circuit treated that statement as an assumption the parties never contested, not a holding.
- Other circuits. The First, Second, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have treated texts as calls under § 227(b). The court distinguished those decisions because they involved a different provision and predated the Supreme Court’s 2021 Facebook v. Duguid decision.
What the Ruling Does Not Decide
The holding is narrower than some headlines suggest:- Voice calls are still covered. Telemarketing calls to numbers on the Do-Not-Call Registry remain actionable under § 227(c)(5).
- The autodialer and prerecorded-message provision is a separate question. Section 227(b) restricts calls made with an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Steidinger interpreted only § 227(c)(5).
- State laws are untouched. The plaintiffs also sued under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. After dismissing the federal claims, the district court declined to keep hearing that state-law claim, so no court decided it. Several states have their own texting and telemarketing laws, and the ruling does not interpret any of them.
- Other regions are not bound. Federal courts outside Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin can reach a different answer, and some already treat texts as calls.
A Growing Split
Steidinger is not the only ruling in this direction. On March 3, 2026, a federal judge in the Northern District of Ohio held in Stockdale v. Skymount Property Group, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01282, that the TCPA’s do-not-call provisions do not apply to text messages. That case is now on appeal to the Sixth Circuit as No. 26-3267, which covers Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. If the Sixth Circuit or another appeals court rules the other way, the disagreement between circuits could eventually reach the Supreme Court. No such petition had been reported as of October 3, 2026.Fashion Nova and the Spam-Text Wave
Retailers that send marketing texts have been frequent defendants in proposed TCPA class actions, and Fashion Nova is a clear example. Fashion Nova Holdings, LLC filed an amicus brief in Steidinger alongside the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Republican Congressional and Senatorial Committees. Fashion Nova’s own pending and recent cases show how the ruling can play out:- Inside the Seventh Circuit: Richards v. Fashion Nova, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01145 (S.D. Ind.), was filed in 2025 in Indiana, where Steidinger is binding. The docket shows Fashion Nova moved to dismiss and has filed notices of supplemental authority citing other courts’ decisions in support of that motion.
- Outside it: Shavies v. Fashion Nova, LLC, No. 3:26-cv-03523 (N.D. Cal.), alleges marketing texts were sent during the quiet hours before 8 a.m. That case is in the Ninth Circuit, which is not bound by Steidinger. OCA’s page on the Shavies complaint covers its allegations.
- Sixth Circuit: Randolph v. Fashion Nova, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-00568 (S.D. Ohio), is a proposed spam-text class action in which Fashion Nova moved to compel arbitration on June 12, 2026, according to the court docket.
- Dismissed: Medina v. Fashion Nova, LLC, a proposed TCPA class action filed April 30, 2026 in the Southern District of California and transferred to the Central District of California in June, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff on July 6, 2026.
What It Means for People Getting Spam Texts
In Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, federal lawsuits that rely on § 227(c)(5) for unwanted marketing texts, including do-not-call and quiet-hours claims, are now foreclosed unless the full Seventh Circuit or the Supreme Court revisits the question. Elsewhere, the outcome depends on how the local federal courts read the statute. Claims about prerecorded or autodialed calls, and claims under state law, are governed by different provisions that Steidinger did not interpret.Open TCPA settlements are a separate matter: they are governed by their own court orders and deadlines. OCA tracks them on its TCPA class actions page, and its TCPA explainer covers how the law works.
What Happens Next
Whether the Steidinger plaintiffs will ask the full Seventh Circuit to rehear the case, or petition the Supreme Court, had not been reported in the sources reviewed for this article. The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Stockdale is the next appellate ruling to watch. OCA will update this page if either case moves or another circuit weighs in.Questions
Does the Steidinger ruling apply outside Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin?
It binds federal courts only in the Seventh Circuit, which covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Courts elsewhere can find its reasoning persuasive or reject it. A federal judge in Ohio reached a similar conclusion in March 2026 in Stockdale v. Skymount Property Group, and that case is now on appeal to the Sixth Circuit.
Are robocalls and voice calls still covered by the TCPA after Steidinger?
Yes. The ruling is about text messages only. The court read “telephone call” in § 227(c)(5) to mean a voice call, so lawsuits over unwanted telemarketing calls to numbers on the Do-Not-Call Registry are unaffected.
What happened to the Florida law claim in Steidinger?
The plaintiffs also sued under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. After dismissing the federal claims, the district court declined to keep hearing the state-law claim, so no court ruled on whether those texts violated Florida law.
Does the ruling cancel TCPA settlements that are already paying out?
The opinion decides whether one kind of lawsuit can go forward; it says nothing about undoing settlements a court has already approved. Each settlement’s own court orders control its claims and payments.
Why did Fashion Nova file a brief in a case about a medical supply company?
Fashion Nova Holdings, LLC was one of four amici curiae listed on the opinion, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Republican Congressional and Senatorial Committees. Fashion Nova faces several proposed TCPA class actions over marketing texts, so how courts read § 227(c)(5) matters directly to its own cases.
Sources
• Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026) — opinion on Justia• Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services — opinion on FindLaw
• Stockdale v. Skymount Property Group, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01282 (N.D. Ohio) — docket
• Stockdale v. Skymount Property Group, LLC, No. 26-3267 (6th Cir.) — appeal docket
• Richards v. Fashion Nova, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01145 (S.D. Ind.) — docket
• Randolph v. Fashion Nova, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-00568 (S.D. Ohio) — docket
• Medina v. Fashion Nova, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-07025 (C.D. Cal.) — docket, including the July 6, 2026 notice of voluntary dismissal
• 47 U.S.C. § 227 — Telephone Consumer Protection Act
