Your Business Received a TCPA Demand Over Marketing Texts: How Serious Is It?

Last updated: November 2026. Reviewed by Pavel Kolmogorov, California business litigation attorney (State Bar No. 321018).

Serious enough to answer carefully, because the numbers multiply. The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. section 227, allows $500 in statutory damages for each violating call or text, and a court may raise that to as much as $1,500 when the violation was willful or knowing. Whether the statute was violated depends on how the messages were sent, what consent you hold, and whether the number was on the national do-not-call registry. Kolmogorov Law, P.C. defends California businesses against these claims.

Call (909) 235-6116 or contact us online to discuss a TCPA demand letter or complaint.

What the demand is claiming

A demand over marketing texts rests on one or both of two parts of the statute. The first restricts calls made with an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. The second protects numbers on the national do-not-call registry. The elements and the defenses differ, so start by identifying which one the letter invokes.

In federal courts in California, a text counts as a call. The Ninth Circuit held in 2026 that a text message is a "call" under the Act, and said the conclusion holds without deference to the Federal Communications Commission. (Howard v. Republican National Committee (9th Cir. 2026) 164 F.4th 1119, 1123-1124.) That case arose under the prerecorded voice rule and did not involve a do-not-call claim. Federal trial courts in California have applied the same reading to do-not-call claims. The Seventh Circuit disagreed in July 2026 and held that the do-not-call right of action does not reach text messages.

The autodialer claim

It is unlawful to call a number assigned to a cellular telephone service using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. The exceptions are emergency calls and calls made with the prior express consent of the called party. (47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).)

An automatic telephone dialing system is equipment with the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial them. (47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).) In 2021 the Supreme Court held that the number generator requirement applies to storing as well as producing. A system that merely stores numbers and dials them automatically does not qualify. (Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021) 592 U.S. 395.)

For a business that texts its own customer list through a commercial platform, this is the first defense to examine. How the platform selects and sequences numbers is a question of fact, so the vendor's technical documentation matters.

The do-not-call claim

No autodialer is needed for the second theory. A person who received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period, by or on behalf of the same entity, in violation of the do-not-call regulations may sue. (47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).)

The regulation bars telephone solicitations to a residential subscriber who has registered the number on the national registry. It also bars solicitations before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. at the called party's location. It applies these rules to calls and text messages to wireless numbers, to the extent described in a 2003 Commission order. (47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), (e).)

Three defenses appear in the text. The statute gives an affirmative defense to a defendant that established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to prevent violations. The regulation excuses a registry violation that results from error when the caller meets its listed standards, including written procedures, trained personnel, a maintained internal list, and registry data no more than 31 days old. A signed written agreement in which the consumer agrees to be contacted by that seller at a stated number also excuses a call to a registered number. (47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2).)

Texts sent by a marketing vendor for your company can be attributed to your company.

Consent and opt-outs

The Commission's rule requires prior express written consent for a telemarketing call made with an autodialer or a prerecorded voice. That means a signed agreement, which may be electronic, clearly authorizing such messages to a stated number. It must disclose that agreeing is not a condition of purchase. (47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2), (f)(9).)

Consent can be withdrawn. Under a rule amended effective November 25, 2026, a sender may designate one listed method, such as a reply text, as the only way to revoke, if each message discloses it clearly. Otherwise any reasonable method works. Unless a different method has been designated, a reply of "stop," "quit," "end," "revoke," "opt out," "cancel," or "unsubscribe" is enough, and the request must be honored within a reasonable time, not to exceed ten business days. (47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10), (11), as amended, 91 Fed. Reg. 67214.)

How much weight the Commission's rules carry is less settled than it was. In 2025 the Supreme Court held that a trial court hearing a private case under the Act is not bound by the Commission's interpretation and must read the statute for itself. Whether a particular rule goes beyond the statute is now open to argument.

What is at stake

The autodialer provisions allow actual monetary loss or $500 per violation, whichever is greater. The do-not-call provision allows actual monetary loss or up to $500, whichever is greater. A court may increase either award to as much as three times the amount available for a willful or knowing violation. (47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), (c)(5).)

The Act was enacted in December 1991, so the general four-year limitations period for claims under later federal statutes applies. (28 U.S.C. § 1658(a).) Four years of messages to a whole list is what turns one complaint into the kind of case described on our page about a business named in a class action.

What to do first, and what not to do

Stop messages to the claimant's number and record when that was done.
Preserve the opt-in record for that number, the message and opt-out logs, the platform settings, and the vendor contract. Our litigation hold page explains the duty.
Send the demand to your insurance broker. See whether business insurance covers a lawsuit.
Pull your customer terms and check for an arbitration clause, which may support a motion to compel arbitration.

Do not write back with an explanation of how your texting system works. That reply becomes evidence. Do not delete or rebuild the contact list either. The general steps are on our page about receiving a demand letter.

What to bring to the first meeting

The demand letter or complaint.
The sign-up form or screen the claimant used, and the record of consent.
Message logs and opt-out records for that number.
The contract with your texting or marketing vendor.
Your business insurance policies.

Frequently asked questions

A customer says our marketing texts violated federal law and demands $1,500 per message. How serious is this?

Treat it as a real claim. The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act allows $500 in statutory damages per violating call or text. A court may award up to three times that sum, which is where $1,500 comes from, if it finds a willful or knowing violation. A California business should preserve its consent and message records, stop texting that number, and have the claim reviewed before responding.

How much is a TCPA violation per text?

Under 47 U.S.C. section 227, a person may recover actual monetary loss or $500 for each violation of the autodialer and prerecorded voice rules, whichever is greater. Do-not-call claims allow actual monetary loss or up to $500 per violation, whichever is greater. A court may award up to three times those amounts for a willful or knowing violation. The same figures apply to a California business as to any other.

Is a text message a call under the TCPA?

In federal courts in California, yes. The Ninth Circuit held in 2026 that a text message is a call within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, reasoning that a call is an attempt to communicate by telephone. The court reached that conclusion on its own reading of the statute and did not rely on deference to the Federal Communications Commission. The case arose under the prerecorded voice provisions.

Our texting platform sends messages only to customers who gave us their number. Is that an autodialer under the TCPA?

Possibly not. The statute defines an autodialer as equipment that can store or produce numbers using a random or sequential number generator and dial them. The Supreme Court held in 2021 that a system which merely stores and dials numbers falls outside that definition. A California business still needs proof of how its platform works. The do-not-call rules apply separately and require no autodialer.

What is the statute of limitations for a TCPA claim?

Generally four years. The Act was enacted in December 1991. Under 28 U.S.C. section 1658(a), a civil action arising under an Act of Congress enacted after December 1, 1990 may not be commenced later than four years after the claim accrues, unless another law provides otherwise. For a California business, a demand can therefore reach back through four years of messages.

Talk to a California business litigation attorney

If your business has received a TCPA demand or been served with a complaint, call (909) 235-6116 or contact us online. Kolmogorov Law, P.C. is located in Irvine, California, and takes matters in the state and federal courts in California.

This page provides general information about federal and California law and is not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the messages, the consent records, and the court.