The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services as it prepares to weigh in on the critical debate over whether a text message should be treated as a “telephone call” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). For ecommerce businesses that rely on SMS marketing, customer engagement texts, and automated messaging tools, the outcome could have major implications for future TCPA litigation and compliance obligations.

Readers may remember this litigation from our earlier coverage of Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services. The case now proceeds on appeal before the Seventh Circuit under the caption Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, but the core legal question remains unchanged.  The case is the latest chapter in a growing legal dispute (see our previous reporting on conflicting federal court decisions) on the question of whether text messages should be treated as “calls” under a law enacted in 1991—years before modern text messaging existed.

.

Why This Case Matters

At the center of the dispute is a seemingly simple question:

Does the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call provision apply to text messages?

The plaintiffs argue that marketing texts should be treated as “telephone calls” under the statute, allowing consumers to bring claims for alleged violations of the National Do Not Call Registry provisions.

Blackstone Medical Services argues the opposite: that Congress used the term “telephone call,” not “text message,” and that the statute should be interpreted according to the meaning of those words when the TCPA was enacted in 1991.

Last year, a federal district court sided with Blackstone, holding that the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call provisions do not apply to text messages. The plaintiffs appealed, bringing the issue before the Seventh Circuit.

Judges Signal Skepticism About Expanding “Telephone Call” to Include Text Messages

While oral argument questions do not necessarily predict how a court will rule, several members of the Seventh Circuit panel repeatedly pressed plaintiffs’ counsel on whether Congress intended the term “telephone call” to include text messages when it enacted the TCPA in 1991.

Judge Thomas Kirsch appeared particularly focused on the difference between interpreting the statute as Congress originally wrote it and applying modern understandings of technology to decades-old legislative language.

At one point, when plaintiffs’ counsel relied on later congressional actions and regulatory interpretations, Judge Kirsch pushed back:

“We’re talking about the 2019 Congress, which is far, far different than the Congress that passed this legislation. So I don’t really care what the 2019 Congress thinks what this law means, and neither should you.” 

That exchange highlights a broader trend in federal courts following recent Supreme Court decisions limiting judicial reliance on agency interpretations and emphasizing statutory text. Rather than asking how regulators have interpreted the TCPA over time, the panel repeatedly returned to a more fundamental question: What did Congress mean when it used the term “telephone call” in 1991?

At the same time, the judges appeared to be carefully testing both sides’ arguments. For example, Judge Doris Pryor noted that Congress itself appeared to treat certain non-voice communications as calls when the TCPA was enacted:

“The 1991 Congress, 30 years ago, was equating a different version of a call to also be a fax. And so, clearly, your argument that telephone call was more expansive, even in 1991, finds support in the statute.” 

The exchange highlighted the competing interpretations facing the court: whether Congress intended “telephone call” to evolve with changing communications technologies, or whether the term should be limited to its original meaning when the TCPA was enacted.

Perhaps the most revealing exchange came when Judge Kirsch summarized what he viewed as the core issue before the court:

“We know telephone solicitation means something different than telephone call. We know telephone solicitation includes a telephone call and a telephone message. Isn’t it our job to just decide whether or not a text message is more closely analogous to a telephone call in 1991 or a telephone message in 1991?”

That question strikes at the heart of the growing disagreement among courts. If a text message is more like a traditional telephone call, TCPA liability may continue to apply. If it is more analogous to a telephone message, courts may conclude Congress never intended the Do-Not-Call provisions to cover text messaging in the first place.

The panel also appeared skeptical of comparisons between text messages and live telephone calls. During argument, Judge Kirsch noted:

“A phone call, when you’re actually on the phone with someone or you answer the phone, is totally different than a text message that you can just ignore.”

That distinction matters because it goes directly to the consumer privacy concerns Congress was attempting to address when it enacted the TCPA. The judges’ questions suggest the court may be considering whether the intrusive nature of a live telephone call is fundamentally different from a text message that can be viewed—or ignored—at the recipient’s convenience.

Taken together, these exchanges suggest the panel was focused less on modern communications technology and more on whether courts should expand statutory language beyond what Congress originally enacted. While no outcome can be predicted from oral argument alone, the questions raised by the judges may provide important clues about how the court is approaching the case.

The Growing Split Over Texts and Calls

Courts around the country are increasingly divided on the issue of whether a text message qualifies as a “call” under the TCPA.

As EIA previously discussed in:

• When Is a Text a Call?
• District Courts Are Split in Grappling Over Whether “Telephone Call” Means Text Message
• What the Jones v. Blackstone Decision Means for Your SMS Marketing

Some courts have concluded that text messages should be treated as calls under the TCPA’s Do-Not-Call provisions. Others have found that the statutory language does not support that interpretation.

If the Seventh Circuit ultimately affirms the lower court’s decision, it could deepen that split and increase pressure for either Supreme Court review, congressional action, or additional FCC involvement.

What Comes Next

The Seventh Circuit is expected to issue a decision later this year. Regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to remain an important part of the national conversation surrounding TCPA enforcement and SMS marketing regulation.

If the court sides with Blackstone, the existing split among courts could deepen and potentially increase the likelihood of Supreme Court review. It could also prompt Congress to consider amendments or a rewrite of a law that was written for different times and different technologies.

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.