SMS compliance for outbound teams — TCPA text message rules, consent tiers, 10DLC registration, and state texting laws.
SMS Compliance: TCPA Text Message Rules for 2026
A text message is a “call” under the TCPA — the Supreme Court said so flatly in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (2016) — so the consent rules, do-not-call rules, and $500-to-$1,500-per-message private lawsuits that govern outbound calling attach to every marketing text you send. On top of the statute sit the FCC’s April 2025 revocation rule, a contested quiet-hours question, the carriers’ 10DLC registration regime, and a short list of state texting laws with teeth. Here is the whole stack, as of July 2026.
This page is education, not legal advice. Enzo is a voice dialer — it has no SMS or texting features — so nothing below is a product pitch. The principle is the same one that governs dialers: the tool itself can be compliant, but compliance depends on user behavior — your consent records, opt-out handling, and schedules. Have a TCPA attorney review any texting program before it sends.
A Text Message Is a “Call” Under the TCPA
The load-bearing fact of SMS compliance is one sentence from the Supreme Court: “A text message to a cellular telephone, it is undisputed, qualifies as a call” within the TCPA’s autodialer provision — Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153, 156 (2016). The FCC has treated texts as calls since 2003. This is settled ground.
The consequences are mechanical. TCPA damages apply per text exactly as per call: actual monetary loss or $500 per violation, whichever is greater, trebled up to $1,500 for willful or knowing violations, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) — with a parallel private action for do-not-call violations at § 227(c)(5). The do-not-call rules reach marketing texts, so a promotional SMS to a registry-listed number carries the same exposure as a sales call to it. The wider penalty picture lives in TCPA for cold callers.
One 2025 caveat belongs up front: in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. (U.S. June 20, 2025), the Supreme Court held that district courts are not bound by FCC interpretations of the TCPA in civil litigation — so no FCC rule on this page “settles” anything on its own, and individual courts may reach different conclusions after McLaughlin.
The Consent Tiers: What Each Kind of Text Requires
Federal law sorts texts by two questions — how the message is sent, and what it says:
- Marketing texts sent with an autodialer or artificial/prerecorded voice require prior express written consent under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2): a signed written agreement, defined at § 64.1200(f)(9), clearly authorizing the seller to deliver telemarketing messages to a specified number.
- Informational (non-marketing) autodialed texts to wireless numbers require prior express consent — which need not be written — under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1).
- Purely manual, non-marketing texts carry no federal consent tier — though state law and carrier rules can still apply.
The carriers run a parallel consent system that is stricter in practice. The CTIA Messaging Principles and Best Practices (May 2023) sort messages into three tiers: conversational (the consumer texts first — implied consent), informational (the consumer gave their number for that purpose — express consent), and promotional (express written consent before any sales or marketing text). Content controls the tier — adding a call-to-action like a coupon code can turn an informational message promotional. These are carrier rules enforced through contracts and filtering, not law: traffic that ignores them gets blocked, which is a separate problem from TCPA liability.
Opt-Outs After April 11, 2025: The Revocation Rule
The FCC’s revocation rule took effect April 11, 2025, and texting is where it bites hardest. Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10), a consumer may revoke consent by any reasonable method. Reply texts of “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe” are per-se reasonable — but the list is not exclusive, and a sender may not designate one official opt-out channel and disregard the others. Revocation must be honored within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 business days of receipt.
The rule preserves one courtesy the FCC first blessed in 2012: under § 64.1200(a)(12), a sender may send one final text confirming the opt-out. Sent within 5 minutes, it is presumed to fall within the consumer’s prior consent; it may contain no marketing content; and where the consumer had opted into multiple message categories, it may ask which ones the revocation covers. CTIA’s guidance runs parallel — honor plain-language requests, send one confirmation per campaign, then go silent.
One piece never arrived: the “revoke-all” provision — one revocation covering all robocalls and robotexts from that caller on unrelated matters — has been delayed to January 31, 2027 (FCC order of January 6, 2026) and is under reconsideration.
Quiet Hours for Texts: The Contested Question
Whether quiet hours apply to marketing texts sent with the recipient’s consent is contested. The federal quiet-hours rule, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1), bars telephone solicitations before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time at the called party’s location — but 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4) excludes messages sent with the recipient’s prior express invitation or permission from the definition of telephone solicitation. Plaintiffs read the window as applying anyway: hundreds of quiet-hours text suits have been filed since November 2024 — roughly 480 cases or demand letters by late 2025, per an industry filing with the FCC — and an FCC petition to resolve the question (filed March 3, 2025) is still pending as of July 2026.
The safe operational practice costs nothing: send texts only between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. at the recipient’s location — and by 8 p.m. into Florida, Oklahoma, and Maryland. The full hours map for calls is in calling hours by state.
10DLC Registration: The Carrier Layer
Before any legal question, there is a deliverability gate. A2P 10DLC — application-to-person messaging over ordinary 10-digit long codes — runs on registration through The Campaign Registry (TCR), the registry the US carriers use to sanction business texting: brands register who they are, campaigns register what they send and why. Registration is a carrier and industry requirement under the CTIA framework, not a statute or FCC rule — but unregistered 10DLC traffic is subject to filtering and blocking, and carriers can financially penalize it.
Costs are pass-throughs from TCR and the carriers, billed by your messaging provider, and they change without notice — treat these as approximate and check your provider’s current fee schedule: one-time brand registration of roughly $4 to $44, campaign vetting around $15, monthly campaign fees from about $1.50 (low-volume mixed) to $10 (standard use cases), and per-message carrier surcharges on the order of $0.002 to $0.005 per SMS segment. These are commercial fees, not regulatory ones.
CTIA’s hygiene rules travel with registration: do not message opt-in lists that were rented, sold, or shared; retain opt-in and opt-out records; process carrier deactivation files regularly so recycled numbers drop off; and open recurring programs with a confirmation message naming the program, the customer-care contact, the opt-out method, and message frequency.
Text Messaging Laws by State
Most states leave texting to the federal framework. Four verified statutes change the math — three of them close the evening at 8 p.m. with a three-contact daily cap:
| State | Texting rule | Cite |
|---|---|---|
| Florida | FTSA expressly defines a “telephonic sales call” to include a text message; automated-system solicitation texts require prior express written consent; $500–$1,500 private action; 15-day STOP safe harbor before suit. Florida’s 8 a.m.–8 p.m. window and 3-per-24-hour cap on the same subject sit in a “phone calls” statute — safest treated as applying to texts. | Fla. Stat. §§ 501.059(1)(j), (8)(a), (10); 501.616(6) |
| Maryland | Stop the Spam Calls Act (effective Jan. 1, 2024) requires prior express written consent for automated-system solicitations — widely read to cover texts, though the statute names texts only in its consent definition. No solicitations 8 p.m.–8 a.m.; max 3 per 24 hours on the same subject; enforcement through the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, with a presumption that Maryland area codes reach Maryland residents. | Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-4501–14-4503 |
| Oklahoma | Telephone Solicitation Act (effective Nov. 1, 2022) requires prior express written consent for automated-system sales calls and is treated as covering texts through its consent definition (“by telephone call, text message, or voicemail transmission”). Hours 8 a.m.–8 p.m.; max 3 contacts per 24 hours on the same subject; $500 per violation, trebled for willful conduct. | 15 O.S. §§ 775C.2–775C.4, 775C.6 |
| Washington | CEMA bars anyone conducting business in Washington from sending commercial electronic text messages to Washington residents without clear, affirmative advance consent — courts have read texting into the state as conducting business there; $500 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater, and a per se Consumer Protection Act violation — the engine behind Washington text class actions. | RCW 19.190.060, 19.190.040 |
| All other states | Federal TCPA framework governs — consent tiers above plus the federal default window (8 a.m.–9 p.m.); states with stricter voice-call windows may reach texts — see calling hours by state. Two more states reach texts through their telemarketing statutes: Texas SB 140 (effective Sept. 1, 2025) pulls texts into the ch. 302 telemarketer-registration regime with DTPA enforcement, and Connecticut’s PA 23-98 defines a “telephonic sales call” to include text and media messages — details in telemarketing laws by state. Several states are actively legislating, so confirm before launching. | 47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200; Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 302.001(7); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-284(18) |
Florida’s safe harbor is the operational one. Under Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10)(c) — added when the FTSA was amended effective May 2023 — a consumer must reply “STOP” to the sending number before suing over text solicitations, and the sender then has 15 days to stop texting that person (one receipt-confirmation text is allowed); a suit lies only if texts continue past the 15 days. Build to the stricter federal 10-business-day clock and the Florida harbor takes care of itself.
Note the trigger language, because the four statutes are not uniform. Maryland and Oklahoma turn on an “automated system for the selection or dialing of numbers” — the broad, disjunctive formulation. Florida’s standard is narrower: HB 761 (effective May 25, 2023) deliberately amended the FTSA trigger to an automated system for the selection and dialing of numbers — conjunctive, both elements required. Washington’s CEMA has no automation element at all; it turns on advance consent. Even so, these state triggers can reach platforms that sit outside the federal post-Duguid ATDS definition — they may cover list-based dialers that are not federal autodialers, and courts have not settled the boundary. The broader state landscape is mapped in telemarketing laws by state.
Where Enzo Fits: It Doesn’t — And That’s the Point
Enzo is a voice dialer. It has no SMS or texting features, sends no messages, and takes no position in your texting stack. For texting compliance you’ll need a separate messaging platform, 10DLC registration through that platform’s provider, and that platform’s consent and opt-out tooling — plus the consent records and suppression discipline above, which no platform supplies for you. The calling side of the same legal framework is covered across the call center compliance pillar.
The texting checklist is short even if the law is not: written consent before promotional texts, honor any reasonable opt-out within 10 business days, one clean confirmation text, stay inside 8 a.m.–9 p.m. (8 p.m. into Florida, Oklahoma, and Maryland), register your 10DLC traffic, and keep every record. Run that list, and have counsel pressure-test it against the states you text into.
Not legal advice. This guide is general information for outbound calling teams, not legal advice. Rules change and apply differently by state, industry, and call type — confirm your program with qualified telemarketing compliance counsel.
Statutes, orders, and figures from 47 U.S.C. § 227, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (2016), McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs. v. McKesson Corp. (2025), FCC orders and filings in CG Docket 02-278, the CTIA Messaging Principles and Best Practices (May 2023), The Campaign Registry, Fla. Stat. § 501.059, 15 O.S. §§ 775C.1–775C.6, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-4501–14-4503, and RCW 19.190, as of July 2026 — educational only, not legal advice.