Current Month (August 2026)
Should Text Messages Be Considered ‘Calls’ Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No
By James W. Sandy, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
In a decision with potential far-reaching consequences, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed dismissal of a putative class action related to unwanted text messages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), finding that text messages do not equal calls and are therefore not covered by section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA.
The Seventh Circuit’s decision ultimately conflicts with decisions from other circuit courts and could result in the U.S. Supreme Court deciding the issue once and for all.
In Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), plaintiffs received numerous marketing text messages from the defendant, even after they asked it to stop (or added themselves to the Do-Not-Call Registry). In response, they filed a putative class action under the TCPA. The defendant then moved to dismiss and argued that 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), the provision on which the plaintiffs’ claims for relief were based, only creates a private right of action for phone calls, not text messages. The district court agreed, dismissed the TCPA claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims. The plaintiffs then appealed.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision and found that a text message is not a telephone call for purposes of § 227(c)(5) of the TCPA.
Because the TCPA does not define the term “telephone call,” the court looked to contemporaneous dictionary definitions. As the court noted, when the TCPA in 1991, “a telephone was ‘[a]n instrument for reproducing sounds at a distance.” Because text messages do not reproduce sounds, they did not meet the definition of a telephone call back in 1991.
The plaintiffs also raised a number of policy-related arguments that the court rejected outright, noting that “the plaintiffs’ policy arguments and broad invocation of the TCPA’s remedial nature ‘cannot overcome the clear commands of [§ 227(c)(5)’s] text and the statutory context.’”
The Seventh Circuit’s ruling is binding on Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, and it means that TCPA class actions under § 227(c)(5) for unwanted marketing text messages in those states are effectively dead. But this decision is only binding in the Seventh Circuit, meaning that other courts could rule differently on the issue. Furthermore, the FCC retains the ability to regulate unwanted text messages under the TCPA.
For more information, see Business Law Today’s forthcoming full-length article on this subject.
Treasury Proposes Rules to Establish a Regulatory Framework under the GENIUS Act
By: Joseph E. Silvia, Dickinson Wright PLLC
On August 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to implement Section 3 of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (“GENIUS”) Act, enacted on July 18, 2025 (the “Act”). The proposed rule would establish the regulatory framework governing the issuance, offer, sale, and making available of payment stablecoins in the United States.
The NPRM’s core prohibition makes it unlawful for any person to issue a payment stablecoin in the United States unless the person is a permitted payment stablecoin issuer or a foreign payment stablecoin issuer that meets the criteria set out in Section 18(a) of the Act. Beginning July 18, 2028, it will also be unlawful for digital asset service providers to offer or sell a payment stablecoin to a person located in the United States unless it was issued by an authorized issuer. The rule is intended to have extraterritorial effect where conduct involves the offer or sale of a payment stablecoin to a U.S.-located person.
The NPRM defines key terms, including “issue” (the first transfer of a payment stablecoin by the issuer that results in a third party having the right to use, transfer, or redeem the stablecoin), “issuer” (the person obligated to redeem the stablecoin for a fixed amount of monetary value), and “located in the United States” (physical presence for individuals, or organization/principal place of business for entities). The NPRM clarifies that payment stablecoin issuers may simultaneously be digital asset service providers, meaning both sets of restrictions can apply to the same person.
Treasury also proposes safe harbors for foreign issuers and digital asset service providers who reasonably believe their counterparties are not U.S.-located, maintain policies and controls to prevent U.S.-directed activity, and refrain from U.S.-targeted advertising. The rule also enumerates examples of knowing participation in unlawful issuance, which may result in fines up to $1 million per violation or imprisonment up to five years. Certain transactions—including peer-to-peer transfers, same-parent-company cross-border account movements, and self-custody wallet transactions—are exempt.
Treasury requests public comment on numerous aspects of the proposal, including the definition of “located in the United States,” the appropriate territorial framework, due diligence standards, and whether additional safe harbors should be adopted.
Treasury and FinCEN Issue Final Rule on Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting
By: Timothy M. Todd, Liberty University School of Law
The Treasury Department and FinCEN issued a final rule regarding beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). In line with the earlier interim rule, the final rule continues narrow reporting requirements. Originally, the CTA reporting rule required domestic reporting companies—generally any domestic entity created by a filing under state law, such as a corporation or LLC—to file BOI reports, which would contain detailed beneficial ownership information.
In the wake of litigation, FinCEN issued an interim final rule that provided two important exemptions. First, the interim final rule exempted domestic reporting companies; second, the rule exempted foreign reporting companies from providing BOI information about U.S. persons. Supporting these exemptions were the burdens associated with their filing, particularly related to U.S. small businesses. Such concerns, however, are not readily present with foreign reporting companies; thus, foreign companies are still generally required to report BOI information (except with respect to U.S. beneficial owners).
In August 2026, FinCEN issued its final rule that largely adopts the interim final rule on a permanent basis based on its desired aim of reducing the regulatory burdens on U.S. persons and domestic reporting companies. The final rule does not add any new obligations; consequently, it is effective upon publication in the Federal Register. The final rule is available at 91 Fed. Reg. 52508 (Aug. 14, 2026), and the Interim Final Rule is available at 90 Fed. Reg. 13688 (Mar. 26, 2025).
