A Florida federal court has given businesses that call and text consumers something they rarely get: a path to getting a Do Not Call lawsuit thrown out early. In Internicola v. MortgagePros, LLC, the court dismissed a Do Not Call claim on two grounds: text messages are not “calls” under the TCPA’s private right of action, and that private right of action does not reach claims built on the National Do Not Call Registry rules at all. The first point fits a pattern we’ve been tracking. The second raises a new question for TCPA litigation, and it’s one every telemarketer, lender, and lead-generation business should be watching.
The Case
The facts of this case are unremarkable on their face. The plaintiff put his number on the National Do Not Call Registry in 2008, reached out to MortgagePros about refinancing in April 2025, and withdrew his consent on July 1, 2025. He alleged that the company then called or texted him just over a dozen times in roughly ten days, in violation of the FCC’s Do Not Call rules. MortgagePros asked the court to dismiss the case, and in an order dated September 24, 2026, the court granted the motion as to the Do Not Call claim.
Text Messages Are Not Telephone Calls
Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA allows a private lawsuit by a person who received “more than one telephone call” within a 12-month period in violation of the FCC’s regulations. The court agreed with the defense that a text message is not a telephone call for that purpose.
That conclusion tracks the Seventh Circuit’s July 2026 decision in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, the first federal appellate ruling on the question. The Seventh Circuit noted that neighboring provisions of Section 227(c) use the defined term “telephone solicitation,” which covers both calls and messages, while subsection (c)(5) uses only “telephone call.” Reading that difference as deliberate, it held that texts cannot support a claim under the provision. It also declined to treat the FCC’s longstanding view that texts are calls as controlling, a stance that has become more common since the Supreme Court’s decisions in Loper Bright and McLaughlin Chiropractic, which freed courts to interpret the statute for themselves.
The Bigger Question: Where the Registry Rules Come From
The second holding is the more consequential one. When Congress passed the TCPA in 1991, it gave the FCC a short window of nine months to write Do Not Call rules. The agency’s initial rules, adopted in 1992, required telemarketers to keep company-specific internal lists, but did not create a national registry. The national registry arrived in 2003, after Congress passed the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act directing the FCC to coordinate with the FTC on a nationwide list.
The court tied that history to the text of Section 227(c)(5), which authorizes suits for violations of “the regulations prescribed under this subsection.” Rules that were not prescribed within the statutory window, the court reasoned, are not rules prescribed under the TCPA’s Do Not Call subsection in the sense that triggers a private right of action. The registry rules came from a later statute that, by its terms, does not create a private lawsuit of its own. If that reasoning holds, the National Do Not Call Registry would remain enforceable by regulators but not by individual plaintiffs and class counsel, who have long brought the bulk of Do Not Call cases.
Keep the Ruling in Perspective
It is important not to overread a single district court order. It does not bind other judges, including others in the same district. An appeal to the Eleventh Circuit has been filed, and other courts may reach different conclusions on a question that is new to most of them.
The court’s reasoning is also specifically aimed at the national registry. Obligations tied to the company-specific lists that trace back to the 1992 rulemaking raise a different analysis, and we expect courts to address that distinction. Meanwhile, claims for autodialed or prerecorded calls under Section 227(b), state telemarketing statutes, and enforcement by federal regulators and state attorneys general are untouched by this decision.
The Practical Takeaway for Marketers
Expect companies facing Do Not Call suits to start citing this decision right away, and expect plaintiffs to shift claims toward other provisions or filing under state laws. That could change where TCPA cases are brought and how they settle, but it will not make them disappear. Companies that send texts and place outbound calls should keep scrubbing against the registry when required, honoring revocations promptly, and documenting consent, particularly as the FCC’s revised revocation rules move toward their effective date. A favorable ruling from one court is a defense to be raised, not a reason to loosen your compliance program.
If you are evaluating how this decision affects your outreach programs, consent practices, or pending litigation, please reach out.
