"Can I Text You?" Isn't Always Innocent: When Car Dealer Texts Violate the TCPA

"May I communicate with you via text?"

On its face, that message sells nothing. It pitches no car, no price, no deal. It just asks a question. But a federal court just refused to dismiss a lawsuit over exactly that text — because under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, what matters is not what a message says. What matters is what it is for.

The ruling, in Shafer v. Toyota of Boardman, No. 4:25-cv-00941 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 21, 2026), 2026 WL 2819768, is a warning shot for every car dealership running text campaigns — and a useful roadmap for consumers who keep getting texts they never agreed to. (Note: one trade-press report on the ruling spells the defendant "Broadman"; the docket and court records show Toyota of Boardman, the Ohio dealership.)

Here's what happened, what the court decided, and what the TCPA actually requires before a dealer can text your phone.

What Happened in Shafer v. Toyota of Boardman

According to the court's opinion as reported on October 7, 2026, the dealership sent the consumer a chain of text messages. The first message asked whether he wanted to upgrade to a new car. That one, the court said, was plainly marketing — nobody disputed it.

The consumer replied STOP.

Then the dealership texted him twice more:

1. "May I communicate with you via text?"
2. A message asking whether he was available "for a quick phone call regarding [his] 2018 Camry."

Neither of those two messages overtly tried to sell him anything. Read in isolation, they look harmless — one asks permission, the other proposes a phone call about a car he already owns. The dealership argued they weren't marketing and asked the court to throw the case out.

The court said no. Viewed in context — texts from a car dealership, sent right after asking the consumer if he wanted to upgrade to a new car — the messages could serve a "dual purpose": luring the consumer into a conversation aimed at a new-car purchase, including by dangling a discussion about his current vehicle. The motion to dismiss was denied, and the case moves forward.

Two important limits on what this ruling means: it was a ruling on a motion to dismiss, not a final finding that the dealership broke the law — the court held only that the consumer's claim was plausible enough to proceed. And the dealership apparently never argued that text messages aren't "calls" under the TCPA, so that defense remains untested in this case.

Car Dealership Keeps Texting Me After I Said Stop — Why "Stop" Means Stop

The most clear-cut part of the Shafer fact pattern isn't the dual-purpose analysis. It's the STOP.

Under the TCPA, you can revoke your consent to receive robocalls or robotexts at any time, in any reasonable manner — even if you previously agreed to get them. That is the Federal Communications Commission's long-standing rule, and the FCC's consumer guidance states it plainly: you may opt out of any robocall or robotext at any time and in any reasonable manner, even if you previously gave consent.

Replying STOP to a text is the textbook reasonable manner of revoking consent. It is the opt-out mechanism the industry itself built. Once you send it, the sender is on notice. Texts that arrive after a STOP reply are sent without your consent — and consent is the entire ballgame under the TCPA.

That principle doesn't depend on whether the follow-up texts were marketing or informational. If you revoked consent for autodialed texts, the texts have to stop. Period.

Can a Car Dealer Text Me Without My Permission? The Consent Rules

Short answer: for marketing texts, no — not without your prior express written consent. For purely informational texts, the standard is lower. Here's how the line works.

The FCC's rules draw a sharp distinction:

• Telemarketing texts (texts that advertise or market goods or services) sent to a wireless number require the recipient's prior express written consent. "Written" includes electronic forms — a website checkbox, a signed form, a recorded keypress — but it must be a clear agreement, not silence or an existing relationship. The consent must clearly authorize telemarketing texts, and it can't be buried as a condition of making a purchase.
• Informational texts (appointment reminders, service updates, account notices with no marketing content) generally require only prior express consent, which can be oral — for example, giving the dealer your number when you bring your car in for service can count as consent for service-related texts.

This is why dealerships love to argue their texts were "informational." Written consent is harder to prove, and the penalties for texting without it are steep. Which brings us to the question at the heart of the Shafer ruling.

Is a "Can I Text You?" Message Telemarketing? Purpose Over Wording

The dealership's core argument in Shafer was essentially: look at the words. "May I communicate with you via text?" contains no pitch, no price, no product. How can that be telemarketing?

The court's answer: purpose matters more than wording. A message that serves a dual purpose — partly informational or conversational, partly aimed at generating a sale — is treated as telemarketing. The FCC has long taken this position, and courts apply it by examining the context surrounding the message: who sent it, what came before it, and what commercial goal it plausibly serves.

In Shafer, the context did the work. The same dealership had just asked the consumer about upgrading to a new car. Against that backdrop, a "quick phone call regarding [his] 2018 Camry" looks less like customer service and more like the opening move of a sales conversation — a way to get the consumer talking so the salesperson can pivot to the upgrade. And the "May I communicate with you via text?" message, sent moments after a STOP, reads as an attempt to re-establish the very texting relationship the consumer just killed.

The lesson for consumers: a text doesn't need to say "SALE!" to be telemarketing. If the real purpose is to draw you into a sales conversation, courts can treat it as marketing — and marketing texts need your prior express written consent.

The lesson for dealerships is the mirror image: you cannot sanitize a sales campaign by moving the pitch one message earlier and keeping the follow-ups bland. Courts look at the whole chain.

Informational vs. Telemarketing Texts: Where Courts Draw the Line

So how do you tell which side of the line a text falls on? Courts generally ask:

1. Does the message advertise or promote goods or services? Direct pitches ("0% APR this weekend!") are telemarketing. Purely factual messages ("Your oil change appointment is Thursday at 9") are informational.
2. Does it have a dual purpose? A message that mixes information with a sales nudge — "Your service is due, and while you're here ask about our upgrade offers" — is treated as telemarketing.
3. What is the context? As Shafer shows, even a neutral message can be deemed marketing when the surrounding circumstances show a commercial purpose.

Dealerships frequently blur this line. A "service reminder" that ends with an invitation to test-drive the new model year is not purely informational. A text "about your 2018 Camry" that arrives in the middle of an upgrade pitch is not purely informational either. When in doubt, courts resolve the ambiguity by looking at what the sender was actually trying to accomplish.

The TCPA in Detail: What the Law Actually Says

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, was enacted in 1991 to curb intrusive telemarketing. Its core wireless-number rule, § 227(b)(1)(A), makes it unlawful to place calls to a cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system (autodialer) or an artificial or prerecorded voice without the recipient's prior express consent.

Texts count as "calls." Although the statute was written before texting existed, the FCC and the overwhelming majority of courts treat text messages as "calls" under the TCPA. The Ninth Circuit put it directly in Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009): a text message is a call under the TCPA. That reading is why the entire body of dealer-text litigation exists.

One development worth knowing: in July 2026, the Seventh Circuit held in a case called Blackstone that a different TCPA provision — the do-not-call private right of action in § 227(c)(5), which speaks of "telephone calls" — does not extend to text messages. That ruling is limited to that specific subsection and that circuit; it does not change the mainstream rule that texts are calls under § 227(b). But it shows this corner of the law is still moving, which is one more reason to have a lawyer evaluate your specific facts rather than relying on general rules.

The autodialer definition got narrower in 2021. In Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021), a unanimous Supreme Court held that an "automatic telephone dialing system" must have the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator. Systems that merely dial from a stored customer list — which is how most dealership texting platforms work — generally don't qualify as autodialers after Duguid.

That sounds like bad news for consumers, but it changes less than you'd think. Duguid narrowed one path to liability; it didn't repeal the consent rules. Telemarketing texts sent through automated dialing systems still require your prior express written consent — and once you revoke that consent, further automated texts violate the statute.

Consent can be revoked. As discussed above, you can take back consent at any time through any reasonable means — replying STOP is the clearest example.

TCPA Damages: $500 Per Text, Up to $1,500 If Willful

The TCPA gives consumers a private right of action — meaning you can sue directly, without waiting for the government to act. Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), a successful plaintiff recovers the greater of actual monetary loss or $500 per violation. And if the court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the statute, it may treble the award — up to $1,500 per text.

A few things to understand about those numbers:

• Each text is a separate violation. Five illegal texts means five $500 awards, not one. The math adds up fast, which is why dealership texting cases are often brought as class actions.
• $500 is the floor, not the ceiling. You don't have to prove you lost money. The statute sets $500 as the minimum recovery per violation.
• The $1,500 figure requires willfulness. A court won't treble damages automatically — the plaintiff must show the violation was willful or knowing. Texting a consumer after they replied STOP is the kind of fact pattern that puts willfulness squarely in play.
• State-law claims can stack. South Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act, for example, provides its own remedies for deceptive or unfair conduct, which can matter when dealer texting is part of a broader pattern of misconduct.

Whether your situation supports $500 or $1,500 per text — and how many texts count — depends on your facts. That's exactly the kind of assessment a lawyer makes before filing.

Who Pays? The Dealer Can't Hide Behind Its Texting Vendor

Dealerships rarely send mass texts from a salesperson's personal phone. They use third-party marketing platforms and lead vendors. When sued, the dealer's first move is often: we didn't send those texts — our vendor did.

That defense usually fails. Under the TCPA, a seller is liable for telemarketing conducted on its behalf, and courts routinely hold businesses responsible for texts sent by their agents and vendors — especially where the messages advertise the business's own goods and the business knew or should have known how its vendor was operating. Hiring someone else to do the texting doesn't launder the liability. If the texts marketed the dealership's cars, the dealership is on the hook alongside whoever pushed "send."

What to Do If a Car Dealer Won't Stop Texting You

If a dealership is texting you without permission — or kept texting after you said stop — take these steps now. They protect both your peace and any claim you may have:

1. Screenshot everything. Capture each text with the sender's number, the date and time, and the full message visible. Do this before anything gets auto-deleted.
2. Don't delete the chain. Your message history is evidence: it shows what was sent, when, and in what order. The sequence matters — as Shafer shows, context is everything.
3. Reply STOP once, clearly. One unambiguous STOP is enough to revoke consent. Screenshot your reply too.
4. Write down the timeline. Note when the texts started, what they said, when you replied STOP, and which texts came after. Dates turn a complaint into a case.
5. Register on the National Do Not Call Registry at donotcall.gov or 1-888-382-1222. It won't stop every text, but it strengthens do-not-call claims and it's free.
6. File an FCC complaint at fcc.gov. The FCC won't resolve your individual case, but complaints drive enforcement — and they create a paper trail.
7. Don't click links or engage further. Beyond your STOP reply, engaging with spam texts can confirm to the sender that your number is active.

Then talk to a lawyer. Whether you have leverage — and how much — depends on your facts: how many texts, what they said, whether you consented, whether you revoked, and whether the dealer kept going anyway.

When to Call a South Carolina TCPA Lawyer

The Shafer ruling captures the two most common dealership-text scenarios we see: texts that were never properly consented to in the first place, and texts that kept coming after the consumer said stop. Both are actionable under the TCPA, and both turn on facts you already have in your phone — the messages themselves.

If a car dealership is texting you without your permission, or texting you after you told it to stop, you may be entitled to $500 per text — up to $1,500 per text if the violation was willful or knowing. Whether you have leverage depends on your facts. Contact Traywick Law Offices for an evaluation: bring your screenshots and your timeline, and we'll tell you what your options are.

---

This post is general information about the TCPA, not legal advice. Case details for Shafer v. Toyota of Boardman are drawn from the court's opinion as reported in legal trade press on October 7, 2026; the ruling denied a motion to dismiss and is not a final determination of liability.