TEXTS NOT CALLS: Another Georgia District Court Finds That Section 227(c) Does Not Apply To Text Messages

Another ruling has dropped on the texts-versus-calls split, continuing the trend among multiple courts who have ruled that text messages are not “calls” under the TCPA’s DNC provisions. In Irvin v. Sonic Industries Services, LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00242-LMM, 2026 WL 1098403 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 20, 2026), a court in the Northern District of Georgia followed the precedent set in Radvansky v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., which we previously covered here.

In Irvin, Defendant Sonic Industries Services, LLC (‘Sonic”) sent at least twelve telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff, who had registered his phone number on the Do Not Call registry in February 2025. Sonic moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

In opposition, Plaintiff made a number of contentions: (1) that the “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning” of the word “call” under the TCPA should be “to communicate with or try to get into communication with a person by telephone;” (2) that the language of Section 227(c)(1) directed the FCC to protect residential phone subscribers from both calls and text messages; (3) that a reading of Section 227(c) as inapplicable to text messages would leave consumers no statutory remedy; (4) that Section 227(c) is an “express delegation of rulemaking discretion to the FCC;” and (5) that the proper standard of review was for “arbitrary and capricious” agency action rather than de novo. The court rejected all of these arguments.

The court noted the Supreme Court’s instruction in Loper Bright that a statute’s meaning is fixed at the time it was enacted. This is another validation of the “1991 definition” approach regarding the definitions of “telephone” and “call.” Because of this, the court rejected Plaintiff’s first, second and third arguments, affirming Radvansky and other recent decisions in the Eleventh Circuit which have similarly found that text messages are not calls under Section 227(c). The court also rejected Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth arguments due to the fact that no express delegation to interpret “telephone call” was given by Congress to the FCC anywhere in Section 227(c). These latter arguments relied on what the court declared a “type of deference to agency interpretation that the Supreme Court rejected in Loper Bright.”

The ruling in Irvin is the latest of a number of well-thought-out opinions across several circuits on this emerging issue. We will continue to monitor these rulings as they are handed down by the courts.

For those who are looking for a more in-depth breakdown of the texts-versus-calls split, Troutman Amin’s Blake Landis will be providing a comprehensive overview at the Law Conference of Champions IV, May 4-6, 2026 in Irvine California.