Introduction: The September 1st Scramble

In the final weeks of August 2025, a wave of urgent notifications swept through the ecommerce industry. Technology platforms issued stark warnings to their clients. A new Texas law, Senate Bill 140 (SB 140), was set to take effect on September 1, 2025. This legislation, they cautioned, could reclassify routine, consent-based marketing text messages as “telephone solicitations,” subjecting thousands of businesses to a regulatory regime designed decades ago for boiler-room telemarketers.

The catalyst for this industry-wide alarm was a seemingly minor amendment to the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act, codified in Chapter 302 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code. SB 140 expanded the legal definition of a “telephone solicitation” to include “a transmission of a text or graphic message or of an image”. This change carried profound implications. To them, this change meant that any business sending promotional text messages to consumers in Texas—even to customers who had explicitly opted in to receive them—could now be required to navigate a complex and onerous registration process with the Texas Secretary of State.

The guidance from marketing platforms was dire (e.g, here,  here, and here). Businesses were presented with a binary choice: stop sending all text message marketing to Texas’s 30 million residents until you completed a daunting registration process under an impossibly tight deadline or face financial ruin. This process involved not only submitting a voluminous registration packet but also posting a $10,000 security bond. For countless small and medium-sized ecommerce companies, this presented an existential threat, forcing them to weigh the potential loss of a major market against a sudden and significant compliance burden.

This report, based on an analysis of records obtained exclusively by the Ecommerce Innovation Alliance (EIA) from the Texas Secretary of State, examines the real-world consequences of SB 140’s implementation. The documents reveal a story not of enhanced consumer protection against unwanted spam, but of administrative chaos, disproportionate burdens placed on legitimate businesses, and a striking double standard set by the very technology platforms that sounded the alarm. This investigation demonstrates how a vaguely drafted law, applied with a broad brush to modern commerce, has resulted in regulatory gridlock, legal uncertainty, and a significant chilling effect on lawful, consent-based communication between businesses and their customers.

A System Overwhelmed: The Telephone Solicitation Logjam

The primary and most immediate consequence of SB 140’s expanded scope was to overwhelm the administrative capacity of the Texas Secretary of State‘s office. Public records detailing the status of telephone solicitation registrations as of September 19, 2025, paint a clear picture of a system in a state of administrative paralysis, unable to process the sudden and massive influx of applications from businesses scrambling to comply with the new law.

The central finding of this investigation is the staggering disparity between the number of applications filed and the number of registrations actually approved and issued. Keep in mind that businesses making voice calls under the statute had been required to complete registration for years, so the only material change was the addition of text messaging to the law.  The data reveals a system that has effectively ground to a halt, leaving hundreds of businesses in a perilous state of legal limbo. As of September 19, 2025, three weeks after the law took effect, the Secretary of State had processed and approved only a handful of new registrations, while a backlog of over 500 applications remained pending.

Texas Telephone Solicitation Registration Status (as of Sept. 19, 2025). Data compiled from public records provided by the Texas Secretary of State, including approved registration certificates and a log of pending applications.

The documents show that only three companies—Central Brands, LLC, Cardiff, Inc., and Avara—had successfully navigated the process and received their official Telephone Solicitation Registration Certificates between the time period the law was signed by Governor Abott on June 20, 2025 and September 19, 2025, nearly three weeks after the September 1st filing deadline. In stark contrast, 507 first-time registration forms were received after SB 140 was passed but remained unprocessed. The number of pending new applications represented 5x the number of all active registration existing in Texas before SB 140.  The data also shows that far less than 1% of the filed applications had been successfully processed by the office.

An analysis of the filing dates for these pending applications confirms that this logjam was a direct result of the September 1st deadline imposed by SB 140. The vast majority of the 524 pending filings were received by the Secretary of State’s office in the last week of August and the first two weeks of September 2025. This timeline directly correlates with the effective date of the law and the compliance advisories issued by marketing platforms, demonstrating that the influx was not a normal course of business but a reactive surge driven by the new legal requirements. For example, on August 28th and 29th alone, the office received dozens of initial registration packets from a wide array of ecommerce businesses, including L’Oreal, Good American, Sol De Janeiro, Diamond Art Club, and Casio America. This pattern continued into September, with hundreds more arriving after the law was already in effect.

This administrative bottleneck has created a state of legal purgatory for the hundreds of businesses that followed the advice to register. The Texas Telephone Solicitation Act is unequivocal: a seller must obtain a registration certificate before making solicitations.  Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 302.101 (“(a)  A seller may not make a telephone solicitation from a location in this state or to a purchaser located in this state unless the seller holds a registration certificate for the business location from which the telephone solicitation is made.”).  The act of merely submitting an application does not confer legal authority to resume sending text messages if the business had determined that they must register. At the same time, SB 140 created a new private right of action, empowering individual consumers to sue businesses for violations and seek statutory penalties of up to $1,500 per violation, with the potential for treble damages for willful violations.

The result is a classic compliance trap. A business that diligently compiled the required documentation, secured a bond, and submitted its application is, until the Secretary of State processes that file weeks or months later, technically non-compliant. Every single text message sent to a Texas consumer during this waiting period represents a potential violation and a corresponding lawsuit. The law, intended to target malicious actors, has inadvertently created a landscape where the most compliant and transparent businesses are exposed to the greatest legal and financial risk. The only guaranteed safe harbor was to cease communication entirely with customers in the nation’s second-largest state, producing a chilling effect on legitimate commerce that was almost certainly not the legislature’s intent.

The Anatomy of a Filing: Deconstructing the Burden on Businesses

The term “registration” suggests a simple administrative task, perhaps an online form and a nominal fee. The reality of complying with the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act, however, is a far more complex, invasive, and costly endeavor. An examination of the required Form 3401 and the completed filings from businesses reveals a process that functions less like a simple registration and more like a comprehensive forensic audit, demanding sensitive personal data, proprietary business information, and significant financial commitments.

The most immediate and tangible burden is financial. Every application must be accompanied by a $200 filing fee and, more significantly, a $10,000 security deposit. This security is typically provided in the form of a surety bond, which must be underwritten by an authorized insurance company. The provided registration documents for companies like L’Oreal, Off The Farm Foods, V Beauty Pure, LLC all include multi-page bond agreements executed with surety companies. For a small ecommerce business or a nascent startup, securing a $10,000 bond is not a trivial matter. It requires a financial underwriting process, incurs annual premium costs, and represents a significant liability that ties up capital and credit that could otherwise be invested in inventory, product development, or marketing. This financial barrier to entry disproportionately affects smaller entities, placing them at a competitive disadvantage against larger corporations for whom such a sum is negligible.

Perhaps more alarming is the law’s requirement for the disclosure of personal and sensitive information of all company “principals,” a term that includes owners, executive officers, and directors. The registration statement demands a complete dossier on these individuals, nearly all of which becomes a public record upon filing. This could create a significant personal security risk, a deeply problematic and unjustified intrusion for a regulation aimed at commercial speech, not criminal investigation.

The invasive nature of the registration extends beyond personal data to competitively sensitive business information. Form 3401 requires businesses to submit a trove of proprietary materials that would normally be protected as trade secrets. For instance, filers must attach “a copy of all sales information and literature, including scripts, outlines, instructions, and information regarding the conduct of telephone solicitations”. The filing for a company that provides sales services for broadband companies, includes its complete internal “Small Business Sales Scripting” document, detailing its entire sales process from opening lines to objection handling. Furthermore, the form demands a list of all financial institutions with which the company does business. Forcing businesses to publicly file their sales strategies, marketing copy, and financial relationships provides a roadmap for competitors and stifles the very innovation that drives the ecommerce sector.

The Platform Paradox: “Registration for Thee, But Not for Me”

Amid the chaos of the September 1st compliance deadline, two critical paradoxes emerged. First, the very SMS marketing platforms that sounded the alarm, urging their thousands of customers to undertake the burdensome Texas registration process, appear to have abstained from the process themselves. A thorough review of the list of 524 pending applications and the handful of approved registration certificates provided by the Texas Secretary of State reveals no filings from SMS industry platforms.

This discrepancy is confounding unless the platform determined that its customers were not actually required to register.  Chapter 302 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code provides a potential exemption for a “person who provides telephone solicitation services under contract to a seller,” provided that at least 75 percent of that person’s business involves servicing sellers who are themselves exempt. This provision represents a legal shield only if the majority of the platform’s customers are exempt, yet the public guidance issued by these platforms was not a nuanced legal analysis of potential exemptions. It was a broad-stroke warning that catalyzed a mass filing event. The message was clear: registration for thee, but not for me.

Second, the platform did not advise their customers of the fact that Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 302.101 prevented sending text messages until the registration was approved, not merely filed.  By telling their customers to register, yet taking no action to stop messaging to Texas until proof of registration had been provided, these platforms may have placed their customers in legal jeopardy.

A Lone Voice of Dissent: A Call for Clarity and Common Sense

While most of the industry platforms advising their users to register, a different strategy was underway. The Ecommerce Innovation Alliance (EIA) and the SMS platform Postscript took a firm, public stance: the law, intended to target unwanted spam, should not apply to businesses sending messages to customers who had already given their consent.  We argued that forcing legitimate, consent-based marketers into a regulatory framework designed for fraudulent telemarketers was an unconstitutional overreach that burdened lawful commercial speech.

Rather than advise their members and customers to enter the registration logjam, EIA and Postscript took direct action. On September 1, 2025, the very day the law took effect, EIA, Postscript, and Texas-based merchant Flux Footwear filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Texas. The suit sought a declaratory judgment that SB 140 was unconstitutional as applied to consent-based messaging and requested an injunction to prevent the state from enforcing the registration requirements against businesses communicating with customers who had opted in.

The lawsuit proved to be the catalyst for the clarity the entire ecommerce industry desperately needed. In its official response to the lawsuit, filed on September 26, 2025, the Texas Attorney General’s office effectively agreed with the plaintiffs. The state’s filing argued that a “plain reading of the statute suggests ‘texts sent with the consent of the recipient’ are not among the communications captured by Chapter 302’s updated definition of ‘telephone solicitation'”. The Attorney General’s office stated that applying the law to consent-based marketing would be “at odds with the stated purpose” of the legislation and “teeters on absurdity”.

This official interpretation from the state’s chief legal officer provided a massive victory for the ecommerce industry. It affirmed the position that EIA and Postscript had championed: that SB 140 was intended to combat unwanted spam, not to regulate and penalize businesses for communicating with their willing customers. The outcome of the lawsuit effectively ended the debate, confirming that businesses using compliant, consent-based SMS marketing practices are not required to register with the Texas Secretary of State.

The implementation of SB 140’s amendments to the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act serves as a powerful case study in how well-intentioned regulation, when poorly drafted, can lead to perverse and damaging outcomes. The evidence gathered from the Texas Secretary of State demonstrates that the law, fueled by bad advice from industry players, instigated administrative chaos, placed undue burdens on legitimate businesses, and created a climate of legal uncertainty that threatens to cut off Texas consumers from the national ecommerce marketplace.

Join the EIA today to help strengthen and shape policies that affect all ecommerce businesses. Together, we can continue to create the future of ecommerce. Subscribe to EIA email updates to stay informed on key developments and their impact on your business.