A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit provides important guidance for companies that use text messaging to communicate with customers and limits the ability of private plaintiffs to pursue certain Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claims. In Steidinger, et al. v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398, 2026 WL 2028517 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a putative class action complaint, holding that 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) does not create a private right of action for individuals who allege they received unwanted text messages.
The case arose from allegations that Blackstone Medical Services sent unsolicited text messages to consumers without their consent. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of individuals who allegedly received unwanted communications, arguing that the TCPA’s restrictions on telephone solicitations extended to text messages and allowed them to recover statutory damages.
The Seventh Circuit rejected that argument. Writing for the court, Judge Thomas Kirsch examined the text and structure of Section 227(c)(5), which permits individuals to bring private actions for violations of certain Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulations governing telephone solicitations. The court emphasized that Congress expressly identified the circumstances under which private enforcement is available and that courts should not expand the statute beyond the language enacted by Congress.
The court concluded that Section 227(c)(5) does not authorize private lawsuits based solely on the receipt of unwanted text messages. Because the statutory provision addresses telephone solicitations and does not expressly provide a private remedy for text messages, the plaintiffs could not proceed under that section of the TCPA.
The decision is significant because TCPA litigation has increasingly moved beyond traditional telephone calls and facsimiles to include text messages, automated communications, and other digital marketing practices. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have frequently sought to apply the TCPA broadly, arguing that consumers should have private remedies whenever they receive unwanted electronic communications. Steidinger places an important limit on those efforts by requiring courts to focus on the specific statutory provision invoked by the plaintiff.
The ruling also reinforces the importance of understanding the different liability provisions within the TCPA. While Section 227(c)(5) did not provide a viable claim in Steidinger, other portions of the TCPA may still create liability for certain text messages, including communications involving automatic telephone dialing systems, prerecorded messages, or other conduct specifically regulated by the statute. Businesses should therefore avoid interpreting the decision as eliminating TCPA exposure generally.
For equipment finance companies, lenders, and other businesses that rely on text messaging for customer communications, collections, account servicing, and marketing, Steidinger provides a useful defense against claims based solely on alleged violations of Section 227(c)(5). At the same time, companies should continue to maintain robust TCPA compliance programs, including obtaining appropriate consent before sending messages, honoring opt-out requests, maintaining accurate internal do-not-contact procedures, and monitoring third-party vendors that conduct communications on their behalf.
The Seventh Circuit’s decision reflects a broader judicial trend requiring courts to apply the TCPA according to its precise statutory language rather than expanding liability based on general concerns about unwanted communications. As businesses increasingly rely on text messaging and other digital communication tools, courts will continue to grapple with the boundaries of TCPA liability.
For now, Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services provides companies operating within the Seventh Circuit with a meaningful limitation on TCPA class actions and confirms that alleged receipt of unwanted text messages, standing alone, does not necessarily create a private claim under Section 227(c)(5).
Practice Pointer: TCPA Compliance Steps for Equipment Finance Companies
Although Steidinger narrows one avenue for TCPA class actions, equipment finance companies should continue to treat TCPA compliance as a priority. Companies that communicate with customers, guarantors, brokers, or prospective customers by text message should consider the following best practices:
- Obtain and Document Consent.
Before sending marketing or servicing text messages, companies should obtain appropriate consent and maintain records demonstrating when and how consent was provided. Documentation is critical in defending against TCPA claims years after communications occur. - Maintain Accurate Opt-Out Procedures.
Companies should ensure that customer requests to stop receiving text messages are promptly honored. Opt-out requests should be captured across all communication platforms and shared with third-party vendors responsible for sending messages. - Review Vendor Practices.
Many finance companies rely on outside servicing companies, collection agencies, software providers, and marketing vendors to communicate with customers. Contracts should clearly allocate TCPA compliance responsibilities, and vendors should be regularly monitored to confirm compliance. - Separate Marketing Communications from Account Servicing.
Companies should carefully distinguish between informational account-related messages and promotional communications. Different TCPA provisions and regulatory requirements may apply depending on the purpose and content of the communication. - Preserve Communication Records.
Maintaining detailed records of consent, message content, delivery dates, opt-out requests, and internal compliance procedures can be essential in defeating TCPA claims and class certification efforts.
While Steidinger provides additional protection against certain TCPA lawsuits, it should not be viewed as a substitute for careful compliance practices. The cost of defending a TCPA class action can be substantial even where a company ultimately prevails, making proactive compliance the most effective risk-management strategy.
The Law Offices of Kenneth Charles Greene present this article. All copyrightable text, the selection, arrangement, and presentation of all materials (including information in the public domain), and the overall design of this presentation are the property of the Law Offices of Kenneth Charles Greene. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download and reprint materials from this article for the purpose of viewing, reading, and retaining for reference. Any other copying, distribution, retransmission, or modification of information or materials from this article, whether in electronic or hard copy form, without the express prior written permission of Kenneth C. Greene is prohibited. The materials available from this article are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any issue or problem. Use of and access to these materials does not create an attorney-client relationship between the Law Office of Kenneth Charles Greene and the user or viewer. The opinions expressed herein are the opinions of the individual author.
