If you replied STOP or otherwise told a company to quit texting you, federal rules treat that consent as revoked. A sender of automated texts may not keep sending them, and must honor the request within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days. Texts after that point may violate the TCPA, depending on the facts.
Most people facing this have already done the obvious thing. They typed STOP, or called and asked to be taken off the list, and the messages kept arriving anyway: payment reminders, promotions, alerts they never wanted. They are left wondering whether their reply counted, whether the company is simply slow, or whether the law says anything at all about it. This page explains what the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Federal Communications Commission's rules say about revoking consent to automated texts, how long a sender has to stop, and what the law makes potentially available when a sender does not.
What the TCPA Says About Consent to Robotexts
The core federal rule is 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). It makes it unlawful for any person in the United States to make any call, "other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party," using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service or certain other services.
Prior express consent means the permission the person being contacted gave before the call or text was made. The FCC's robocall and robotext guide says FCC rules require a caller to obtain oral or written consent before making an autodialed or prerecorded call or text to a wireless number, and that commercial texts require written consent, while consent to informational texts may be oral.
An automatic telephone dialing system is defined in 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) as "equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers."
The printed text of § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) still ends with an exception for calls made solely to collect certain debts owed to or backed by the United States. That exception is not current law: the Supreme Court held it invalid and severed it in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (No. 19-631, July 6, 2020).
Consent is also not permanent. Federal regulations recognize that a person who gave it may take it back.
How a Consumer Revokes Consent Under Federal Regulation
Revocation is governed by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10). It provides that a called party "may revoke prior express consent, including prior express written consent, to receive calls or text messages" covered by the rule "by using any reasonable method to clearly express a desire not to receive further calls or text messages from the caller or sender." Revocation, in plain words, is withdrawing permission given earlier.
The regulation names several methods that count as "a reasonable means per se," meaning they work automatically:
- an automated, interactive voice or key press opt-out mechanism on a call;
- the words "stop," "quit," "end," "revoke," "opt out," "cancel," or "unsubscribe" sent in reply to an incoming text; or
- a website or telephone number the caller designated to process opt-out requests.
If a consumer uses one of these, the regulation says consent "is considered definitively revoked and the caller may not send additional robocalls and robotexts." A reply using other words must be treated as a valid revocation "if a reasonable person would understand those words to have conveyed a request to revoke consent." A sender using a protocol that does not allow replies must say so clearly on each text and give reasonable alternative ways to revoke.
Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(11), other means, "such as a voicemail or email," create a rebuttable presumption of revocation once the consumer produces evidence the request was made, absent evidence to the contrary. Whether consent was first given orally, in writing or online, the current text says callers "may not designate an exclusive means to request revocation of consent."
What Happens After Revocation: The Ten-Business-Day Window
The regulation sets an outer limit rather than a fixed waiting period. Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10), every request made in any reasonable manner "must be honored within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days from receipt of such request." Business days generally exclude weekends and holidays, so the window can stretch beyond ten calendar days.
For someone still getting messages two days after replying STOP, that limit matters. A text that arrives inside the window may not be a violation, because the rule gives the sender a reasonable time to process the request. Even so, ten business days is the maximum, not an automatic grace period; what counts as reasonable depends on the facts.
One message is specifically addressed. Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(12), a single text confirming the revocation does not violate the rule if it "merely confirms" the request, contains no marketing or promotional information, and is the only additional message sent. If sent within five minutes, it is presumed to fall within the consumer's prior consent; if later, the sender must show the delay was reasonable. If the person had consented to several categories of texts, the confirmation may ask which ones the revocation covers.
Automated texts that keep arriving after the ten-business-day limit has passed raise a different question. They may violate 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) if they were sent using covered equipment or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without consent and without an exception. Whether a particular situation violates the law depends on its facts.
What the TCPA Makes Potentially Available When the Rule Is Violated
Private enforcement of the automated-call and prerecorded-voice rules sits in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). It allows a person or entity, "if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State," to bring in an appropriate court of that State:
- an action to enjoin (court-order a stop to) the violation;
- an action "to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater"; or
- both.
The statute adds that if the court finds the defendant "willfully or knowingly" violated the subsection or its regulations, "the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount" otherwise available.
These are what the statute allows a court to award, not amounts anyone is owed. Each depends on a court first finding a violation, which turns on facts such as the equipment used, whether consent existed and when it was revoked, and whether an exception applies. The increase is discretionary and depends on a separate finding of willful or knowing conduct. Not every text sent after a STOP reply will lead to liability. A broader overview of consumer rights remedies covers how the federal statutes differ, and a separate page explains what a consumer lawsuit under federal law involves.
Texts vs. Calls: How the TCPA Applies to Both
The statute speaks of "any call," yet texts sit inside the same framework. The FCC's guide states that its rules "ban text messages sent to a mobile phone using an autodialer unless the phone owner previously gave consent to receive the message or the message is sent for emergency purposes," and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10) addresses revocation of consent to "calls or text messages" alike.
The TCPA contains two separate sets of rules, and they should not be blurred:
- Automated-call rules, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b). These cover calls and texts made using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Consent and revocation, discussed above, belong here, and the private action is § 227(b)(3).
- Do-not-call rules, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c). These protect residential subscribers from telephone solicitations they object to, including through a national do-not-call database.
The do-not-call private action, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), has its own conditions. It 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, if otherwise permitted by State law or court rules. It allows an injunction, actual monetary loss "or to receive up to $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater," or both. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant "established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures" to prevent such solicitations. A court may, in its discretion, increase the award to not more than 3 times that amount for willful or knowing violations. The statute adds that § 227(c) does not permit a communication § 227(b) prohibits.
Certain facts tend to decide how the revocation rules apply. The first is the revocation itself: the date it was sent or made, the words used, and the method, whether a STOP reply, a key press, a designated website or phone line, or something like an email or voicemail, which the regulation treats differently.
The second is what came afterward. The dates and times of texts received after revocation show whether they fell inside or outside the ten-business-day limit, and their content shows whether a message was a single confirmation text or something more. The FTC's do-not-call guidance similarly notes the value of writing down the date a consumer asked a company to stop calling.
The third is the sender's identity: the company named in the text, any number it came from, and the short code or long number used.
Whether a text was sent using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice is a factual question. It bears directly on whether 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) applies at all, and it is often information held by the sender rather than the recipient. Records like these may also matter for related privacy questions, discussed on this site's consumer privacy overview.
State Law and the TCPA: Federal Floor, State Additions
The TCPA is federal law, and its consent and revocation rules apply across the United States. A state can add its own protections, and those additions differ from state to state, so the federal rule describes the minimum rather than the whole picture in any one place.
California offers one example, though from a different statute and for a different kind of sender. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17, California's rule is that every debt collector collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt must comply with specified provisions of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and is subject to that Act's remedies, with exceptions in the statute for certain persons. That is a debt-collection rule, not a TCPA rule; it matters only when the sender of unwanted texts is a debt collector.
For collectors specifically, the CFPB's page on debt collector harassment says it is harassment when debt collectors "use electronic communications – such as text, email, and social media messages – intended to harass, oppress, or abuse you or any person." Federal law also generally sets a one-year limit for filing an FDCPA lawsuit, measured from the date on which the violation occurs. Those rules run alongside the TCPA without replacing it.
How to File a Complaint with the FCC
A consumer may report illegal calls or texts to the FCC. According to the FCC's guide, the person filing chooses the "unwanted calls" category and notes whether their number is being spoofed, blocked or mislabeled.
The FCC states plainly what a complaint does. It "doesn't resolve individual complaints but 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 also be shared with other enforcement agencies." In other words, a complaint informs the regulator; it does not by itself stop the texts or produce a remedy for the person who filed it.
The same page says do-not-call violations may be reported to the FTC. The FTC's guidance says that agency "can't respond to each one," but analyzes reports to identify and act against those responsible for illegal calls. For a person who has replied STOP repeatedly and feels unheard, these channels are a way to put the problem on record with federal regulators.
If You'd Like a Consumer Rights Case Review
Texts after a STOP reply often come down to details that are hard to sort out alone: when the revocation was received, whether later messages fell inside or outside the ten-business-day limit, and how the messages were sent. A conversation about a situation like this can cover the company named in the texts, the exact words and date of the revocation, the messages that followed, and the screenshots or records already on hand. This page explains the federal consent and revocation rules; it does not address other kinds of disputes with the same company.
To discuss a situation like this with an attorney, a reader may request a consumer rights case review through Federal Consumer Rights.
