{"id":3210,"date":"2026-09-09T08:53:56","date_gmt":"2026-09-09T12:53:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3210"},"modified":"2026-09-09T08:53:57","modified_gmt":"2026-09-09T12:53:57","slug":"first-district-court-in-the-fourth-circuit-holds-that-the-tcpas-do-not-call-provision-does-not-cover-text-messages","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/09\/09\/first-district-court-in-the-fourth-circuit-holds-that-the-tcpas-do-not-call-provision-does-not-cover-text-messages\/","title":{"rendered":"First District Court In The Fourth Circuit Holds That The TCPA’s Do-Not-Call Provision Does Not Cover Text Messages"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Ryan T. Garippo<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 On September 3, 2026, in Card, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., No. 26-CV-00433, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201636 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2026), Judge Catherine Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed <\/a>a putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the \u201cTCPA”\u201d), on the basis that \u00a7 227(c)(5) of the statute does not extend to text messages.\u00a0 The decision follows the Seventh Circuit’s recent ruling in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, 182 F.4th 532 (7th Cir. 2026) and represents the first district court within the Fourth Circuit to hold that a text message is not a \u201ctelephone call\u201d within the meaning of \u00a7 227(c)(5).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On May 11, 2026, Plaintiff Shawn Card (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d or \u201cCard\u201d) sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. (\u201cReynolds\u201d) under the TCPA claiming the company violated the national do-not-call registry\u2019s requirements.  Because Plaintiff alleged his phone number was registered on the national-do-not-call registry, allegedly received unwanted text messages from Reynolds, and supposedly never consented to receive those text messages, he claimed that Reynolds violated \u00a7 227(c)(5) of the TCPA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the complaint, Plaintiff also sought to represent a class of similarly situated individuals who also received text messages that allegedly violated the TCPA\u2019s long-standing prohibition on telephone calls to numbers on the national do-not-call registry.  Plaintiff specifically relied on \u00a7 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, which purports to create a private right of action for an individual \u201cwho has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reynolds moved to dismiss and argued that \u00a7 227(c)(5) does not apply to text messages.  Plaintiff opposed that motion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court’s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge Eagles found the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Steidinger<\/em> persuasive and dismissed the complaint because text messages \u201cdo not fall within the private right of action created by \u00a7 227(c)(5).\u201d  Card<\/em>, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201636, at *3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge Eagles explained \u00a7 227(c)(5) references a \u201ctelephone call\u201d and not a \u201ctelephone solicitation,\u201d as used elsewhere in the statute, and which is expressly defined to include telephone messages.  This decision demonstrated that \u201cCongress intended ‘telephone call’ in \u00a7 227(c)(5) to have a narrower scope.\u201d  Id.  <\/em>Thus, the structure and text of the TCPA supported this interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, Judge Eagles also took care to note that \u2013 prior to McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation<\/em>, 606 U.S. 146, 168 (2025) \u2013 most courts had presumed that \u00a7 227(c)(5) applied to text messages based largely on the Federal Communications Commission\u2019s (the \u201cFCC\u201d) regulations.  But after McKesson, those cases are no longer good law because that case \u201cchanged the standard for judicial deference to agency statutory interpretation and called into question such decisions relying on the FCC’s interpretation.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, Judge Eagles also rejected the approach adopted by the courts that have held the term \u201ctelephone call\u201d encompasses text messages, such as Taha v. Momentive Software, Inc.<\/em>, 2026 WL 974297, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2026), which reasoned that “had Congress intended to eliminate textual communications from \u00a7 227(c)(5) it would have used the phrase \u2018voice call,\u2019 rather than \u2018telephone call.\u2019\u201d  Judge Eagles, however, noted that \u201cthe inverse is also true; if it had been the intent to include all types of communications, Congress more simply could have used the broader term \u2018call\u2019 as it did in \u00a7227(b), rather than \u2018telephone call\u2019 as it did in \u00a7 227(c)(5).\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result, Judge Eagles concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a claim and became the first district court judge in the Fourth Circuit to conclude that \u00a7 227(c)(5) does not cover text messages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Card<\/em> decision is significant for the growing split in authority as to whether the private right of action codified at \u00a7 227(c)(5) covers text messages.  Card <\/em>is the first court in the Fourth Circuit to hold that such text messages are not actionable.  Indeed, there are now district courts in five federal circuits \u2013 including the entire Seventh Circuit \u2013 that hold text messages are not covered by this section of the statute.  A chart summarizing this authority is depicted below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Federal Circuit<\/strong><\/td>Sample Opinion<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
1st Circuit<\/td>\u2bbd<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
2nd Circuit<\/td>\u2bbd<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
3rd Circuit<\/td>\u2bbd<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
4th Circuit<\/td>Card v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.<\/em>, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201636 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2026)<\/td><\/tr>
5th Circuit<\/td>\u2bbd<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
6th Circuit<\/td>Stockdale v. Skymount Prop. Grp., LLC<\/em>, 825 F. Supp. 3d 622 (N.D. Ohio 2026)<\/td><\/tr>
7th Circuit<\/td>Steidinger v. Blackstone Med. Servs.<\/em>, 182 F.4th 532 (7th Cir. 2026)<\/td><\/tr>
8th Circuit<\/td>Rush v. Selectquote Ins. Servs., Inc.<\/em>, 2026 WL 2495598 (W.D. Mo. July 30, 2026)<\/td><\/tr>
9th Circuit<\/td>\u2bbd<\/td><\/tr>
10th Circuit<\/td>\u2bbd<\/td><\/tr>
11th Circuit<\/td>See, e.g., Davis v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.<\/em>, 797 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2025)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, there are district courts in the First, Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits that have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs\u2019 bar on this issue with no decisions ruling in favor of corporate defendants in those circuits.  There are no district courts in the Tenth Circuit that have analyzed this issue.  And the common wisdom is that Howard v. Republican National Committee<\/em>, 164 F.4th 1119 (9th Cir. 2026) decided this issue for the entire Ninth Circuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most interesting parts of Card<\/em> is that Judge Eagles\u2019s opinion suggests that the issue is still live <\/em>in the Ninth Circuit.  Howard <\/em>was decided in the context of a \u00a7 227(b)(3) claim.  Thus, when Judge Eagles suggested that the term \u201cany call\u201d in \u00a7 227(b)(3) is a \u201cbroader term\u201d than was used in \u00a7 227(c)(5), it also suggests that there may be some daylight between Howard<\/em> and the growing number of district courts that hold \u00a7227(c)(5) does not cover text messages.  Card<\/em>, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201636, at *6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While this decision is undoubtedly a positive development for corporate counsel, we are not yet at the stage where companies can consider revising their text messaging programs.  The new decisions are coming in rapidly and the landscape is changing quickly.  Nonetheless, the Card<\/em> decision provides corporate defendants with a powerful tool to challenge putative \u00a7 227(c)(5) class actions, premised on the receipt of text messages, particularly in the Fourth Circuit.  As a result, companies should continue to raise this argument and monitor this blog to stay on top of this growing split in authority.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Ryan T. Garippo Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 On September 3, 2026, in Card, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., No. 26-CV-00433, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201636 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2026), Judge Catherine Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “First District Court In The Fourth Circuit Holds That The TCPA’s Do-Not-Call Provision Does Not Cover Text Messages”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[89],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,127],"class_list":["post-3210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-tcpa-class-action-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Riley","first_name":"Jennifer A.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/jenniferriley.html","description":"Read Jennifer's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":127,"user_id":692,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rgarippo","display_name":"Ryan Garippo","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/09\/garipporyan-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Garippo","first_name":"Ryan","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/ryangarippo.html","description":"Read Ryan's Bio<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3210","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3210"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3210\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3213,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3210\/revisions\/3213"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3210"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}