Last updated: August 2026 · ~5 min read · Educational, not legal advice.
What actually happened
On July 14, 2026, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals — which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin — ruled in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that text messages don't count as "telephone calls" under one specific piece of the TCPA: Section 227(c)(5), the private right of action tied to the National Do-Not-Call Registry. In plain English: in those three states, a customer generally can't personally sue you under that particular DNC provision just because a text landed instead of a call.
That's it. That's the whole ruling.
What didn't change — and this is the part that matters
Three things the headlines are leaving out:
It only applies in three states. If your shop operates outside Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin, this ruling doesn't govern your exposure at all. Every other TCPA rule that applied to you on July 13 still applies today.
Section 227(b) — the consent rule that actually drives most TCPA suits against contractors — wasn't touched. The ruling addressed the do-not-call registry provision, not the requirement that you have prior express written consent before sending marketing texts or using an automated system to contact someone. That consent requirement, and the $500–$1,500-per-message statutory damages that come with violating it, are completely unaffected.
A different federal circuit just ruled the opposite way. In January 2026, the Ninth Circuit — covering California and eight other Western states — held in Howard v. Republican National Committee that texts do function as "calls" for TCPA purposes. Two circuits reading the same statute differently on a question this fundamental is exactly the kind of split the Supreme Court typically has to step in and resolve. Until that happens, "is a text a call under the TCPA" doesn't have one national answer — it depends on where your customer lives, and the rules could shift again with a single Supreme Court decision.
So if anything, contractors running AI phone agents or automated texting systems are operating in a more uncertain legal environment this month than they were a month ago — not a safer one.
The part almost nobody's talking about: your insurance probably won't cover this
Here's the piece that should worry shop owners more than the court ruling itself. A federal court in New York ruled years ago, in Flores v. ACE American Insurance Co., that standard cyber and E&O insurance policies commonly contain exclusions that specifically bar coverage for TCPA claims — and that ruling still reflects how most policies are written today. Contractors who assume their general liability or cyber policy has them covered if a texting campaign goes sideways are frequently wrong. Read your policy's exclusions section before you assume you're protected, not after you get a demand letter.
What this actually means for your shop
None of this is a reason to panic, and none of it is a reason to stop texting customers. It's a reason to know exactly where you stand. Every shop running an AI receptionist, automated appointment reminders, or a texting platform for lead follow-up should be able to answer, in specific terms:
- Do we have documented consent for every number we text?
- Are we screening against the do-not-call registry and our own internal do-not-contact list — not just honoring "STOP" replies?
- Are our automated messages timed to the recipient's local hours, not our shop's?
- Could we produce records proving all of this in an afternoon if a demand letter showed up tomorrow?
If you're not sure, that uncertainty is the actual risk — not the court ruling.
Educational and general in nature; not legal advice. Consult your attorney about your specific situation.
Related guides