Another month, another Texas federal court telling a defendant that yes, a text message is a call under the TCPA.
In Feliciano v. Red McCombs Hyundai Northwest GP, L.L.C., No. SA-26-CV-00200-JKP, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246635 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2026), the plaintiff alleged that a San Antonio car dealership sent prerecorded sales calls and telemarketing texts to his cell phone, even though his number was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The dealership didn’t fight the calls. It went after the texts, moving for judgment on the pleadings on the theory that “telephone call” in 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) means a voice call and nothing else.
The Court kicked the tires and passed.
It acknowledged that “[r]ecent TCPA jurisprudence reflects a growing split” on the issue. Then it skipped the long walk through that split, because a sister court had already done the work. “This Court will not discuss this jurisprudence,” it wrote, “because it is thoroughly discussed in Duron,” pointing to Duron v. Kings Capital Holding LLC, 2026 WL 319779 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2026).
From there, the Court cited a lineup of decisions from across Texas and the Fifth Circuit, including Callier v. The Finish Line (N.D. Tex.), Callier v. American Auto Group (W.D. Tex.), Alvarez v. Fiesta Nissan (S.D. Tex.), and McGonigle v. Shopperschoice.com (M.D. La.). Courts in the region, it observed, “consistently hold the TCPA applies to text messages.” Persuaded by “these and the overwhelming majority of cases,” the Court held that “the term ‘telephone call’ incorporates text messages under the TCPA,” which makes telemarketing texts to a registered number actionable under § 227(c)(5).
The Fifth Circuit hasn’t ruled on the question yet. But the district courts below it are close to unanimous, and they’re getting brisker about it. When a court won’t even re-explain the split, the question has started to feel settled.
In Texas, at least, a text is still a call.
