Unwanted spam texts may violate federal law, but not every one does. Federal rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act generally bar texts sent to a cell phone with an autodialer without the recipient's prior express consent, and separate do-not-call rules limit telemarketing. Whether a particular message crosses the line depends on how it was sent, why, and what consent existed.
Most people searching for a spam text attorney have already tried replying "STOP," blocking the number and deleting the messages, only to watch new ones arrive. Some come from a number that changes every few days. Others come from a company the person once did business with and never expected to hear from again. What these readers want to know is simple: is this just the cost of owning a phone, or does federal law give them something to stand on? This page explains how the TCPA treats text messages across the United States, how consent can be withdrawn, and what the statute makes available.
What the TCPA Says About Spam Text Messages
The core federal rule is 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). It makes it unlawful for any person within the United States, or outside it if the recipient is here, to make any call using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, a paging service or a service for which the called party is charged. The rule does not apply to a call made for emergency purposes or one made with the prior express consent of the called party.
The Federal Communications Commission applies this rule to texts. Its consumer guide on robocalls and texts states that FCC rules ban text messages sent to a mobile phone using an autodialer unless the phone owner previously gave consent or the message is sent for emergency purposes. In other words, a law written with phone calls in mind also reaches the messages that show up on a phone's screen.
Two terms carry most of the weight. An automatic telephone dialing system, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), is equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers. The Supreme Court read that definition in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (No. 19-511, decided April 1, 2021). Prior express consent means the permission a person gave before the messages began.
The statute's text still contains a carve-out for calls made solely to collect certain debts backed by the United States. In Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (No. 19-631, July 6, 2020), the Supreme Court held that carve-out invalid and severed it.
Unsolicited Text Messages and the Law: What May Qualify
The TCPA contains two different tracks, and a spam text can fall under one, both or neither. The first track is 47 U.S.C. § 227(b): the rules on automated equipment and artificial or prerecorded voices. The second is 47 U.S.C. § 227(c): the do-not-call rules, which protect residential subscribers from telephone solicitations they object to.
The FCC's implementing rules appear at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a). For messages that include an advertisement or constitute telemarketing sent with an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2) generally requires the called party's prior express written consent. The FCC guide states this plainly: commercial texts require written consent, while for informational texts consent may be oral. The guide adds that these rules apply even if a number is not on the National Do Not Call Registry.
In practice, the line often falls between a sales pitch and a reminder. An autodialed marketing text sent to a cell phone without written consent may violate the regulation, subject to its exceptions. An informational text, such as an appointment reminder, sent to someone who gave the number for that purpose may not. The content of the message and the kind of permission behind it both shape which side of that line it lands on.
The do-not-call side works differently. The FTC's Do Not Call Registry FAQs explain that the Registry tells registered telemarketers which numbers not to call, but it does not block calls, and it can take up to 31 days for sales calls to stop. The FTC also states that a registration never expires. For someone who registered years ago and still gets sales messages, that explains why the Registry alone may not have made them stop.
When the messages come from a debt collector, a separate statute may also apply. The CFPB's page on debt collector harassment lists repetitious texts and other electronic communications intended to harass, oppress or abuse as harassment. State law may add its own protections, and those protections differ from state to state.
How to Revoke Consent to Robocalls and Robotexts
Consent given once is not permanent. Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10), as the regulation currently reads, a called party may revoke prior express consent, including prior express written consent, to calls or texts covered by the rule by using any reasonable method that clearly expresses a desire not to receive further calls or texts from that caller or sender.
The regulation names methods that count as reasonable on their own terms:
- an automated, interactive voice or key-press opt-out on a call;
- a reply text using "stop," "quit," "end," "revoke," "opt out," "cancel" or "unsubscribe";
- a website or telephone number the caller designates for opt-out requests.
When a consumer uses one of these methods, the regulation treats consent as definitively revoked, and the caller may not send more robocalls or robotexts. A reply using other words must still be treated as a valid revocation if a reasonable person would understand it as a request to revoke consent. A sender using a texting system that cannot accept replies must say so clearly on each text and give reasonable alternative ways to revoke.
The regulation also sets a time limit: revocation requests made in any reasonable manner must be honored within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days from receipt. Callers and senders covered by the rule may not designate an exclusive means to request revocation, so a sender cannot insist that only one particular form or channel will work.
The FCC's own guide puts it in one line: a consumer may opt out of any robocall or robotext at any time and in any reasonable manner, even after giving consent. For people who replied "STOP" weeks ago and are still getting messages, the dates of the reply and of every message that followed are often what matter most.
The FCC has changed these rules more than once in recent years. This page describes the revocation rule only as the regulation text currently states it.
What Remedies the TCPA Makes Available
Each of the two tracks has its own private lawsuit, with its own conditions. Either kind of suit may be brought only if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a state, in an appropriate court of that state. Either one can ask a court to stop the conduct, to award damages, or both.
Automated-equipment track. Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), a person or entity may sue to recover actual monetary loss from a violation of subsection (b) or its regulations, or $500 in damages for each violation, whichever is greater. If the court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the rule, the court may, in its discretion, increase the award to not more than 3 times that amount.
Do-not-call track. Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), the action belongs to a person who has 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. That person may sue for actual monetary loss or up to $500 in damages for each violation, whichever is greater. The defendant has an affirmative defense if it established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent such solicitations. The same discretionary increase, to not more than 3 times the amount, applies to willful or knowing violations.
Because damages are counted per violation, a long run of unwanted messages is not treated as a single event. Still, these are amounts the statute allows a court to award, not amounts it guarantees. Whether any is awarded turns on proof of a violation, the defenses raised and the facts of the case. The consumer rights remedies page compares how other federal consumer statutes set their remedies.
Reporting Spam Texts: The FCC's Official Complaint Process
A consumer may file a complaint with the FCC about illegal calls or texts. According to the FCC's consumer guide, the complaint form has an "unwanted calls" category, and a person may note whether their number is being spoofed, blocked or mislabeled.
The FCC is direct about what a complaint does. It states that it does not resolve individual complaints. Instead, it uses them to guide policy and possible enforcement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act or the Truth in Caller ID Act, and a complaint may be shared with other enforcement agencies. The same guide notes that phone scams and Do Not Call violations can be reported to the FTC. The FTC, for its part, says it receives millions of reports a year and cannot respond to each one, but analyzes them to identify illegal callers.
An agency complaint and a private lawsuit are separate. Filing with the FCC or the FTC does not start a TCPA action under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) or (c)(5), and a private action does not depend on whether a complaint was filed. People who feel worn down by messages that keep arriving sometimes find it useful to know that the two paths run side by side.
What This Site Covers — and What It Does Not
Federal Consumer Rights is an independent legal information and marketing platform, not a law firm. It provides general information about consumer rights and legal matters, and inquiries submitted through it may be reviewed and shared with independent law firms for potential follow-up.
This site does not provide legal advice and does not represent consumers. Sending a request does not guarantee that an attorney will make contact. This page covers federal law on unwanted texts and calls. It does not describe any state's own rules, and it does not cover debt relief, bankruptcy or whether any bill should be paid. When spam texts arrive alongside other privacy problems, the consumer privacy attorney page explains how federal law treats personal information more broadly, and the consumer rights attorney page covers debt collectors and credit reports.
Requesting a Consumer Rights Case Review
Spam-text cases often turn on small facts: whether a reply said "stop" and when, whether the messages kept coming more than ten business days later, how the sender got the number, and whether anything on the sign-up form amounted to written consent. A conversation about a case like this typically covers the sender's numbers, screenshots of the texts and their dates, any opt-out replies, and any complaint already filed with the FCC or the FTC. This page does not address any state's own texting or telemarketing rules, and the consumer law FAQ covers related federal questions. To discuss unwanted texts like these with an attorney, a reader may request a consumer rights case review through Federal Consumer Rights.
