October 23, 2026 · 9 min read

TCPA and Review Request Texts: What Owners Need to Know

The TCPA covers review request texts, not email. What it says, why no court has ruled on them, and how to ask for reviews safely.

A customer finishes a job and the owner has their mobile number on the invoice. A text asking for a Google review looks like the easiest request in the world: one line, one link, read within minutes. It is also a message governed by a federal law with a private right of action, and most articles on the topic skip that part.

This post is about the law, not a how-to guide. ReviewHero sends review requests by email only, so the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) is not a rule the product runs into. But owners ask about it constantly, because they text customers from their own phones and from other tools. Here is what the rules say, what nobody has settled, and what a careful business does anyway.

This is general information, not legal advice. Rules vary by state and change often. Ask a lawyer about your own situation before you send anything at scale.

What the TCPA covers, and what it does not

The TCPA is 47 U.S.C. 227. It restricts calls and messages sent with an automatic dialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice, and it separately restricts telephone solicitations. The FCC writes the detailed rules in 47 CFR 64.1200.

Two things matter for a small business.

First, the rules split messages into two tracks. Under 64.1200(a)(1), a covered call to a mobile number needs the called party's "prior express consent". Under 64.1200(a)(2), a call that "includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing" needs "prior express written consent". Written consent means a signed agreement, and an electronic signature counts.

Second, email is not in this statute at all. A review request sent by email falls under CAN-SPAM, which we cover in what a review-request email legally must contain. The TCPA is the rule for the phone.

The money: why owners should care

The TCPA lets the recipient sue. Under 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3), a person can recover "actual monetary loss" or five hundred dollars for each violation, whichever is greater. If a court finds the violation was willful or knowing, it "may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times" the base amount.

The statute never states a fixed tripled figure. Tripling is the ceiling, and the increase is up to the judge. Damages count per message, so a short list of texts to a short list of customers can still add up fast.

The separate do-not-call and quiet-hours route, 227(c)(5), applies to a person who received "more than one telephone call within any 12-month period" in violation of the FCC's rules. It also gives a defense to a business that "has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures" to prevent violations.

We could not find a credible, sourced count of how many TCPA lawsuits are filed each year, so we do not quote one.

Is a review request "advertising"? Nobody has ruled

This question decides which consent track applies. As far as we could find, no court opinion or FCC ruling squarely answers it. We looked for decisions on texts asking for a review, a rating or a satisfaction score and found none that settle it.

The closest authority is the FCC's treatment of "dual purpose" messages. The FCC's 2003 order, FCC 03-153, says at paragraph 141 that whether a message is an ad "should turn, not on the caller's characterization of the call, but on the purpose of the message." At paragraph 142 it says that messages with a customer-service element "would, in most instances, constitute 'unsolicited advertisements'" when they are "motivated in part by the desire to ultimately sell additional goods or services". Its examples include a call that "may inquire about a customer's satisfaction with a product already purchased".

The FCC repeated the dual-purpose idea in its 2012 order, FCC 12-21, at paragraph 30. The Ninth Circuit applied it in Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores (2012), holding that automated "informational" reward-program calls were advertising because they encouraged future purchases. The court wrote that neither the statute nor the regulations require an explicit mention of a good, product or service where the implication is clear from context.

A review request asks about satisfaction. A plaintiff can argue it is also motivated by a wish to win future customers. A business can answer that the message offers nothing for sale. Which side wins is a fact question, and no ruling we found makes it safe or unsafe. A Third Circuit decision, Mauthe v. National Imaging Associates (2019), is sometimes cited for the point that a satisfaction survey offering nothing for sale was not an advertisement. It concerned a fax, not a text, it was not a precedential opinion, and we have only read a summary. Treat it as a hint, not a shield.

The courts now decide this for themselves

In McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson (2025), the Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency's interpretation of a statute. Judges now read the TCPA themselves. Old FCC guidance, including the dual-purpose language above, can be argued against. That cuts both ways for a business, and it is one more reason the outcome is hard to predict.

What changed recently

Several developments have moved the ground, and they are why articles written two years ago are out of date.

The Eleventh Circuit opinion describes the vacated rule as one affecting only telemarketing and advertising robocalls and robotexts. The older written-consent rule was not at issue.

The newest order matters most. As adopted, FCC 26-67 lets a caller treat a "stop" to an informational message as covering only that kind of message. A "stop" to an advertising or telemarketing message ends consent to all future advertising and telemarketing calls and texts from that sender. It also lets a caller name an exclusive opt-out method, such as replying with a standard word, as long as the message says so clearly. The ten-business-day limit stays in the adopted text, and the FCC asked for comment on whether to shorten it.

The order takes effect 30 days after Federal Register publication. We could not confirm that publication date, so check the FCC's public notice for the actual day before you rely on it.

Quiet hours, and the part we cannot confirm

The federal quiet-hours rule is 47 CFR 64.1200(c)(1). It bars a telephone solicitation to "any residential telephone subscriber before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m." local time at the recipient's location. It applies to a "telephone solicitation", defined as a call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of goods or services.

The rule text says "residential telephone subscriber". We could not confirm from a primary source how the FCC applies that wording to mobile numbers, so we do not state it as fact. The simple habit is to send nothing between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. in the customer's time zone, whatever the rule technically requires.

State laws sit on top

Some states add their own rules. Florida's Telephone Solicitation Act, Fla. Stat. 501.059, defines a "telephonic sales call" to include a text sent "for the purpose of soliciting a sale of any consumer goods or services". It excludes calls to a person "with whom the telephone solicitor has a prior or existing business relationship". Damages are actual damages or five hundred dollars, whichever is greater, with a possible increase to three times. Before a damages suit, the recipient must reply "STOP" and give the sender 15 days to stop.

Oklahoma passed a similar law in 2022 through HB 3168, with the same five hundred dollar minimum and a possible increase to three times. We have not checked how either state's quiet-hours and call-limit rules apply to a local business, so read them yourself or ask a lawyer.

A careful way to ask, if you text at all

No source above says a review-request text is safe, exempt, or purely informational. That gap is the finding. What follows is our inference, not a rule from any agency.

1. Get consent for this purpose, in writing. Written consent is the safest answer to the dual-purpose risk. A box on an intake form that says the customer agrees to receive a text asking for a review, with the number named, is stronger than assuming the number on an invoice is permission.
2. Keep the message about the review. No coupon, no upsell, no "book your next visit". Anything that sells makes the advertising reading easier to argue.
3. Send everyone the same link. The request goes to every customer, not only the ones you expect to be happy. That is the line between a request and review gating, which we cover in the FTC rule on review gating.
4. Say how to stop, and honor it fast. The rule allows up to ten business days. Do it the same day.
5. Mind the clock. Nothing before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. where the customer is.
6. Keep records. Store who consented, when, and how. Section 227(c)(5) gives a defense to businesses with reasonable practices, and records are how you prove them.

None of this changes Google's own rules. Google prohibits selective solicitation and incentives whatever the channel, and those apply to a text exactly as they apply to an email. Our summary of Google's review policy in 2026 covers them.

What we could not verify

Several claims in circulation did not survive a check against primary sources, so they are not in this post.

• Any yearly count of TCPA lawsuits, or any "percent increase" figure. We found no publisher with a stated method.
• The holding of the Ninth Circuit's January 2026 Howard v. Republican National Committee decision. We saw only summaries.
• Whether any ruling calls a review-request text exempt or informational. We found none.
• The exact effective date of FCC 26-67.

What to do next

1. Decide whether you text customers at all. If your tool only sends email, the TCPA is not your rule; CAN-SPAM is.
2. If you do text, add a consent line to your intake or invoice form that names review requests and records the date.
3. Rewrite your template so it contains only the request and the link, plus how to stop.
4. Set a send window of 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. in each customer's local time.
5. Write down your opt-out process and test it with your own number, then check the FCC's public notice for the 26-67 effective date.
6. Ask a lawyer who handles TCPA matters to read your consent wording once. That one review costs far less than a demand letter.

FAQ: review request texts

Does the TCPA apply to review request texts?

It can. The TCPA covers calls and texts to mobile numbers, and whether a request for a review counts as advertising is unsettled. Treat it as covered and get written consent.

Does the TCPA apply to review requests sent by email?

No. Email falls under CAN-SPAM, not the TCPA.

What is the safest way to send review request texts?

Get written consent that names review requests, keep the message about the review only, send inside 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. in the customer's time zone, and honor opt-outs fast.