News

District Courts increasingly divided on whether the TCPA allows Do-Not Call claims for texts

02 March 2026

Building columns on a government building on a stormy afternoon.

On February 17, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia joined a growing list of district courts finding that consumers who receive more than one telemarketing text message cannot bring private Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims to enforce the Do-Not-Call (DNC) rules. In the wake of Loper Bright and McKesson, these district courts are rejecting arguments that the term “telephone call” in the TCPA’s DNC statute encompasses text messages.

In Radvansky v. 1‑800‑Flowers.com, Inc., No. 1:25‑CV‑2811‑TWT, 2026 WL 456919 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 17, 2026), the court granted a motion to dismiss claims alleging that 1‑800‑Flowers.com violated the TCPA by sending telemarketing text messages to numbers listed on the National DNC Registry.

The key holding: No private DNC claims for text messages

The decision turns on the scope of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)—the provision that creates a private right of action for violations of the TCPA’s DNC regulations. That subsection authorizes suit by a “person who has received more than one telephone call” in violation of FCC rules.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2), which prohibits telemarketing to residential numbers on the DNC Registry. The court held, however, that 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) authorizes private suits only for repeated (telemarketing) “telephone calls,” and therefore claims based solely on text messages are not actionable.

TCPA and DNC after Loper Bright and McKesson

Applying Eleventh Circuit precedent, the court emphasized several points:

“Telephone call” does not mean “text message.”
Agency interpretation cannot expand a private right of action. After Loper Bright and McKesson, courts are not required to defer to FCC guidance that stretches statutory language beyond its text.
Structure confirms the result. The court’s view was that Sections 227(c)(1) and (c)(2) empower the FCC to regulate telemarketing practices, but § 227(c)(5) narrowly defines when private litigation is permitted.

A growing trend

1‑800‑Flowers places the Northern District of Georgia squarely within a growing group of courts holding that the TCPA’s DNC private right of action does not extend to text messages. Two Florida district courts—also in the Eleventh Circuit—reached the same conclusion, emphasizing that § 227(c)(5) authorizes private suits only for repeated “telephone calls,” not texts.¹ And a mere five days prior to the 1-800-Flowers ruling, another judge in the Northern District of Georgia found that text messages are not calls for the purposes of § 227(c)(5).²

District courts outside the Eleventh Circuit are also increasingly divided on this issue. Two district courts in the Seventh Circuit have similarly rejected private DNC claims based on text messages, while courts in the Ninth and Fifth Circuits have continued to follow an interpretation that the term “telephone call” in § 227(c)(5) includes texts.³

For more information or TCPA inquiries, please contact the authors.

Authored by Mark Brennan, Jay Mills, and Jordyn Johnson.

References

See Sayed v. Naturopathica Holistic Health, Inc., No. 8:25‑CV‑00847‑SDM‑CPT, 2025 WL 2997759 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2025); Davis v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (N.D. Fla. 2025).
Radvansky v. Kendo Holdings, Inc., No. 3:23‑cv‑00214‑LLM (N.D. Ga. Feb. 12, 2026).
Compare Jones v. Blackstone Med. Servs., LLC, Case No. No. 1:24-CV-01074, 2025 WL 2042764 (C.D. Ill. July 21, 2025); Mujahid v. Newity, LLC, Case No. 25 C 8012, 2025 WL 3140725 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 10, 2025), with Dilanyan v. Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc., Case No. 2:25-CV-05093-JLS-BFM, 2025 WL 3549868 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2025); Wilson v. Medvidi, Inc., Case No. 5:25-CV-03996, 2025 WL 2856295 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2025); Alvarez v. Fiesta Nissan, Inc., No. 7:25-CV-00343, 2026 WL 202930 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2026).