By: Jeffrey Backman, Esq., Roy Taub, Esq., and Jacob Mars, Esq.
In another decision weighing in on whether text messages qualify as telephone calls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), a Pennsylvania federal court has ruled that unwanted text messages do not give rise to a private cause of action under Section 227(c)(5).
On October 29, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed a putative class action in Bronstin v. Happy Cabbage Analytics, Inc., No. 1:25-CV-01083, 2026 WL 3257600 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2026), holding that the TCPA’s private right of action under Section 227(c)(5) applies to telephone calls—not text messages. According to the complaint, Bronstin received a promotional text in March 2022 and responded “STOP,” receiving confirmation that he would be unsubscribed. Nevertheless, he allegedly received another promotional text in March 2023.
The court agreed with defendant Happy Cabbage, relying heavily on the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, 182 F.4th 532 (7th Cir. 2026). Examining the TCPA’s statutory language, the court emphasized that Section 227(c)(5) expressly provides a private cause of action for individuals receiving multiple unwanted “telephone calls” within a twelve-month period—not text messages. The court also acknowledged that the Federal Communications Commission has historically interpreted telephone calls to include text messages. However, citing Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., the court explained that it was not bound by the FCC’s interpretation and must independently evaluate the statutory language. Notably, the court distinguished Section 227(c)(5) from other TCPA provisions that expressly reference messages, reasoning that Congress’s choice of different terminology supported a narrower interpretation.
The decision highlights an increasingly significant split among federal courts regarding the TCPA’s application to text messages. Indeed, the court acknowledged that several courts, including other Pennsylvania federal courts, have reached the opposite conclusion. Nevertheless, it found the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning persuasive and declined to follow decisions relying on earlier FCC interpretations. Although the court rejected Happy Cabbage’s separate challenge to Bronstin’s standing, it ultimately dismissed the complaint with prejudice, concluding that Section 227(c)(5) does not provide a private cause of action for unwanted text messages.
To discuss TCPA compliance or a pending matter, please contact Jeffrey A. Backman, co-chair of the Class Action Defense practice group at [email protected].
This publication is provided by Greenspoon Marder LLP is issued for informational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as general legal advice nor a solicitation of any type. Please contact the author(s) or your Greenspoon Marder LLP contact if you have any questions regarding the currency of this information. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision. Before you decide, ask for written information about the lawyer’s legal qualifications and experience.
