Blackstone Medical Services Lawsuit: TCPA Ruling and Appeal

The Blackstone Medical Services lawsuit is a federal class action accusing the Tampa-based home sleep testing company of bombarding consumers with unwanted marketing texts and calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. A federal judge in Illinois dismissed the federal claims in July 2025, ruling that text messages are not “telephone calls” covered by the TCPA’s do-not-call provisions. The plaintiffs appealed, and the case is now pending before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, with a decision expected in late August or early September 2026.¹

Who Sued Blackstone and Why

Three consumers — Joseph Jones, Seth Steidinger, and Natasha Koller — filed a consolidated class action complaint against Blackstone Medical Services, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on April 14, 2025. The case is docketed as Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01074-JEH-RLH. The complaint accused Blackstone of running an aggressive telemarketing campaign for home sleep tests, using repeated texts and calls to reach consumers on their cell phones.²

Each plaintiff described the same basic problem. Steidinger said Blackstone got his number after he discussed a possible sleep test with his doctor, then kept texting him even after he replied “STOP” and told the company he wasn’t interested. His number had been on the National Do Not Call Registry since April 2018. Koller said her doctor shared her number with Blackstone without her permission and the company ignored her repeated requests to stop. Jones said he received a “barrage” of texts starting around September 2022, despite asking the company to stop several times.²

The complaint brought four TCPA counts and one count under Florida’s Telephone Solicitation Act. It proposed three classes:³

An Internal Do Not Call List Class covering anyone in the U.S. who got two or more marketing texts from Blackstone within 12 months, including at least one sent more than 30 days after asking the company to stop.
A Do Not Call Registry Class covering anyone whose number had been on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days when Blackstone contacted them, without prior written consent.
An FTSA Class covering Florida residents who received marketing texts from Blackstone after telling the company to stop.

The Dismissal: A Text Message Is Not a Call

On July 21, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jonathan E. Hawley granted Blackstone’s motion to dismiss all four TCPA counts. The ruling turned on whether the word “telephone call” in the TCPA’s do-not-call provisions, found in Section 227(c), includes a text message. Judge Hawley said it does not.⁴

The TCPA was enacted in 1991, before commercial text messaging existed. The statute’s do-not-call provisions use the terms “call” and “telephone call” and never mention texts. The plaintiffs argued that earlier FCC orders treated texts as equivalent to calls under a different section of the TCPA, Section 227(b), and that the same logic should apply to Section 227(c). Judge Hawley rejected that argument, noting the FCC guidance addressed a different part of the statute. “It is not for a court to legislate by reading into the TCPA something that is not there,” he wrote. If Congress wants text messages covered by the do-not-call provisions, the court said, it will have to amend the law.²

The court relied on two recent Supreme Court decisions, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. (2025), which together freed district courts from having to defer to FCC interpretations of the TCPA.⁵ With the federal counts gone, the court declined to keep the Florida state law claim, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice.⁴

The Appeal Before the Seventh Circuit

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on August 11, 2025 (Seventh Circuit Case No. 25-2398). The parties jointly asked the district court to convert its ruling into a dismissal with prejudice so the appeal could move forward, and final judgment was entered on August 21, 2025.³

Blackstone filed its appellee brief on December 22, 2025, arguing that Congress specifically defined “text message” in Section 227(e) of the TCPA without ever updating the private right of action in Section 227(c)(5) to mention texts. That, the company said, shows Congress knew the difference and chose not to extend the do-not-call enforcement mechanism to text messages.³ The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief on December 29, 2025 urging the appeals court to affirm.¹

The Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments on May 21, 2026 before Judges Thomas K. Kirsch II, Doris L. Pryor, and Nancy L. Maldonado. Judges Kirsch and Pryor both sounded skeptical of the plaintiffs. Judge Kirsch pressed on whether Congress could have intended “telephone call” to cover text messaging in 1991, before the technology existed commercially. Judge Pryor asked why, if Congress wanted texts included, it hadn’t amended Section 227(c)(5) when it addressed text messages in Section 227(e) in 2018. Judge Maldonado did not ask questions.⁶

Why the Ruling Matters Beyond This Case

District courts around the country have split on the same question the Blackstone case raises. Some have agreed with Judge Hawley that texts are not calls under the TCPA, including a Northern District of Florida decision in Davis v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. in August 2025 and a Middle District of Florida ruling in Sayed v. Naturopathica Holistic Health, Inc. in October 2025. Others have ruled the opposite way, including courts in Oregon, the Northern District of California, and the Southern District of New York. A court within the Seventh Circuit itself — the Northern District of Illinois — held in November 2025 that text messages are calls under the TCPA, creating a direct conflict inside the same circuit.⁷

The stakes are practical. At least two other class actions, Richards v. Fashion Nova, LLC and Richards v. Shein Distribution Corp. in the Southern District of Indiana, have been stayed pending the Seventh Circuit’s ruling. The outcome will decide whether consumers on the do-not-call registry can sue companies that send marketing texts under the TCPA’s private enforcement provisions, or whether they must look elsewhere. If the Seventh Circuit sides with Blackstone, the resulting split with other circuits could push the question to the Supreme Court.

Broader Consumer Complaints Against the Company

The telemarketing allegations in the class action track a wider pattern of complaints against Blackstone Medical Services. The Better Business Bureau gives the company an F rating and reports that Blackstone failed to respond to 283 complaints filed against it. Of more than 300 total complaints logged over three years, billing and product issues are the most common categories.⁸

Consumers reported being charged upfront fees, commonly around $249, and then facing demands for additional payments or being told their test results would be withheld until they paid more. Some said Blackstone billed both their credit card and their insurance company for the same service. Late fees of $25 to $125 appeared on accounts even where consumers had shipping documentation showing timely return of equipment.⁹

A recurring theme is difficulty reaching anyone at the company: hold times of more than two hours, unreturned calls and emails, and no supervisor available. The persistent multi-channel outreach described in the lawsuit — calls and texts from rotating numbers — also appears in the complaints, with consumers reporting continued contact after they blocked numbers or asked the company to stop.¹⁰

A Note on a Similarly Named Company

Blackstone Medical Services, LLC is a separate entity from Blackstone Medical, Inc., an Orthofix International subsidiary that paid $30 million in 2012 to settle False Claims Act allegations that it paid kickbacks to spinal surgeons. That case involved a different company in a different medical field and has no connection to the TCPA litigation described here.¹¹

1
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services
2
TCPA Blog. Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services Court Order
3
Courthouse News Service. Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services Appellee Brief
4
ACA International. Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services
5
U.S. Supreme Court. McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates Inc. v. McKesson Corp.
6
Law360. Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services
7
Kennedys Law. Post-Chevron Chaos: Courts Split on Whether Texts Are Calls Under the TCPA
8
Better Business Bureau. Blackstone Medical Services LLC BBB Profile
9
Better Business Bureau. Blackstone Medical Services LLC BBB Complaints
10
Better Business Bureau. Blackstone Medical Services LLC BBB Complaints
11
U.S. Department of Justice. Orthofix Subsidiary Blackstone Medical Pays US $30 Million To Settle False Claims Act Allegations