What Texas SB 140 Tried to Do
Texas Senate Bill 140 (effective September 1, 2025) amended the state’s telemarketing law (the “Mini‑TCPA” in Chapters 301‑305 of the Business and Commerce Code) to cover text‑message marketing (SMS/MMS) alongside traditional telemarketing calls. Among other things, SB 140 originally appeared to require:
- Registration with the Texas Secretary of State for businesses making commercial text solicitations,
- A $200 filing fee,
- A $10,000 security bond, and
- Additional disclosures before sending marketing texts to residents of Texas. (National Law Review)
This sparked concern among many brands and direct‑to‑consumer marketers that even opt‑in (consent‑based) SMS programs would trigger burdensome compliance obligations. (Klaviyo)
The Regulatory Pause: What Actually Changed
Settlement and Clarification (Nov 6, 2025)
In response to a legal challenge brought by the Ecommerce Innovation Alliance (EIA) and companies like Postscript and Flux Footwear, the Texas Attorney General’s office agreed on a joint motion to dismiss the case after clarifying the state’s position on SB 140:
- Businesses that send text messages only to consumers who have provided prior consent are not required to register as telephone solicitors under the amended registration regime.
- The Secretary of State has updated public guidance to state that companies sending opt‑in marketing texts do not need to complete the Telephone Solicitation Registration Statement under Business and Commerce Code Chapter 302.
- Unprocessed registration applications may be withdrawn, and applicants can request refunds for fees already paid. (National Law Review)
This effectively pauses enforcement of registration requirements for consent‑based SMS marketing — temporarily relieving many marketers from having to comply with the registration, bond, and disclosure provisions that SB 140 initially appeared to impose. (National Law Review)
Official Legal Interpretation
Attorney General’s Position
According to filings in the court challenge:
- The Texas AG’s office stated that SB 140’s registration and disclosure requirements were not intended to apply to text message programs where messages are sent only with consumer consent.
- Thus, opt‑in SMS programs are excluded from telephone solicitation registration — even though SB 140 expanded the definition of “telephone solicitation” to include text marketing. (JD Supra)
This clarification gives companies greater clarity and confidence that they can operate consent‑based SMS programs without onerous registration, as long as they maintain documented opt‑in consent. (JD Supra)
Practical Impact on Marketers
What Has Been Paused
- Mandatory registration
- $200 fee
- $10,000 bond requirement
- Detailed statutory disclosures tied to registration
These requirements are not currently being enforced against businesses engaging in consent‑based text marketing to Texas residents. (National Law Review)
What Still Applies
- SB 140 is still on the books and continues to expand the scope of Texas telemarketing law to include text messages.
- The Texas law still includes a private right of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and elevated damages for violations — which means businesses could still face litigation risks if they send messages without valid consent or otherwise violate the law’s other provisions. (Nixon Peabody LLP)
Comments & Industry Perspectives
Marketers
Industry practitioners’ reactions — including commentary on LinkedIn — emphasize that the Attorney General’s position was greatly needed for clarity:
Clarification that consent‑based SMS is not treated as “telephone solicitation” under SB 140 makes it possible for ecommerce brands and other consent‑based marketers to operate without registering as telemarketers in Texas. (LinkedIn)
This is seen as a win for businesses that build SMS lists via opt‑in and maintain good consent records.
Legal Analysts
Some compliance experts caution that Texas courts are not bound by the settlement or by the upcoming formal opinion from the AG. Private litigants could still challenge this interpretation — especially under the statutory private right of action created by SB 140 — if they view registration as required despite consent. (Nixon Peabody LLP)
Legally, the exemption for consent‑based messaging has persuasive force, but it is not a binding court precedent until a court definitively rules on it. (CompliancePoint)
Key Takeaways for Businesses
What You Can Do Now
- Continue operating consent‑based SMS marketing programs in Texas without registering as a telephone solicitor — if you have documented opt‑in consent and honor opt‑out requests.
- Withdraw unprocessed registration applications and seek refunds for fees if you previously attempted to register. (National Law Review)
What You Should Still Monitor
- Potential private litigation targeting even opt‑in SMS marketers under the Texas DTPA.
- The formal Attorney General opinion once published, and any future court rulings interpreting SB 140.
- Ongoing compliance with other telemarketing requirements (quiet hours, opt‑out mechanics, consent documentation). (Nixon Peabody LLP)
Summary
| Topic | Status Under Latest Developments |
|---|---|
| SB 140 registration requirement | Not enforced for consent‑based SMS marketing (clarified by Texas AG and settlement) (National Law Review) |
| Consent‑based text messaging compliance | Safe if documented consent is maintained (JD Supra) |
| Private right of action risk | Still exists under DTPA and could be tested in courts (Nixon Peabody LLP) |
| Best practice | Maintain detailed opt‑in/opt‑out records and follow industry standards (SlickText Help) |
Bottom Line
Texas telemarketing law (SB 140) no longer requires registration for consent‑based SMS marketing — thanks to a settlement and clarifying position from the Texas Attorney General and Secretary of State. This gives regulatory relief to businesses relying on opt‑in messaging, as long as they keep strong records of consent and continue to comply with other statutory obligations. (National Law Review)
Here’s a case‑study + commentary overview of “Texas Pauses Registration Requirements for Consent‑Based Marketing” — showing how the situation unfolded in real business practice, what the legal clarification involved, and how marketers and commentators have reacted to it. All insights are based on the latest legal updates and real‑world responses. (National Law Review)
Case Study 1 — The EIA vs. State of Texas Settlement
Background
Texas Senate Bill 140 (SB 140) — effective September 1, 2025 — expanded the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act to include SMS/MMS text message marketing under state telemarketing rules, meaning companies sending marketing texts to Texas residents could be treated like telemarketers requiring state registration, fees, and bonding. This caused massive compliance confusion and operational risk for businesses with consent‑based SMS marketing programs. (National Law Review)
The Legal Challenge
In response, the Ecommerce Innovation Alliance (EIA) — joined by companies like Postscript and Flux Footwear — filed a federal lawsuit challenging enforcement of the registration requirement, arguing it was unworkable for legitimate, opt‑in text marketing businesses. (National Law Review)
The Settlement and Clarification
- On November 6, 2025, parties agreed to a settlement and joint motion to dismiss the case after Texas regulators clarified their interpretation.
- The Texas Attorney General stated that it did not intend SB 140’s registration and disclosure requirements to apply to consent‑based text message marketing programs — meaning businesses that send texts only with consumer consent are not required to register as telephone solicitors.
- The Texas Secretary of State also updated guidance confirming this exemption, and businesses that submitted registrations they hadn’t yet received could withdraw applications and request refunds. (National Law Review)
Impact: This effectively paused enforcement of the text‑message registration obligation for consent‑based marketing, saving many brands from costly and time‑consuming state compliance burdens. (National Law Review)
Case Study 2 — Operational Impact on Business SMS Programs
Rapid Industry Reaction
Before the settlement, many ecommerce and SMS marketing platforms warned their customers that SB 140 could force them to:
- Register with the Texas Secretary of State,
- Pay a $200+ filing fee and $10,000 security bond,
- Provide detailed disclosures and ongoing reporting — even for consent‑only lists. This posed a potential barrier to doing business in Texas (a population of ~30 million consumers). (Ecommerce Innovation Alliance (EIA))
Some companies considered drastic actions like:
- Pausing text campaigns to Texas residents, or
- Excluding Texas subscribers from marketing sends altogether to avoid non‑compliance risk. (Ecommerce Innovation Alliance (EIA))
Post‑Settlement Operational Change
After the Attorney General’s clarification and Secretary of State guidance, most firms resumed normal consent‑based SMS marketing without registering. The exemption made it feasible for marketers to continue sending permission‑based texts to Texas consumers without the regulatory red tape that had briefly stalled operations. (National Law Review)
Practical insight: The settlement didn’t change the law on the books, but changed how regulators will treat consent‑based programs, reducing operational burden in the near term. (Klaviyo)
Commentary from Industry & Legal Experts
Legal Commentary
- Attorneys have emphasized that SB 140 remains law, and other parts of it — such as private rights of action, quiet hours, and do‑not‑call requirements — still apply even if registration is paused for consent‑based text messages. (Nixon Peabody LLP)
- The Attorney General’s interpretation provides persuasive clarity, but it is not yet a binding court precedent, meaning private litigants could still challenge compliance or interpret the law differently. (National Law Review)
Marketing Platform Commentary
- SMS compliance platforms and vendors have highlighted the relief that the clarification provides, particularly for small and medium businesses where the original registration and $10,000 bond would have been a serious financial deterrent. (Attentive)
- They continue to warn companies to maintain robust consent documentation and compliance with other aspects of the law (opt‑outs, quiet hours) because lawsuits can still arise under the private right of action. (Attentive)
Community and Practitioner Views
Small Business & Marketer Sentiment
On public forums, marketers and small business owners initially reacted with alarm when SB 140 first took effect:
- Many understood that SMS/MMS text marketing was suddenly regulated like traditional telemarketing, even for consent‑based messages — seen as a nightmare for SMS marketing. (Reddit)
- Some even planned to blacklist Texas numbers or avoid marketing there due to compliance uncertainty over registration and the $10,000 bond requirement. (Reddit)
After the November clarification, sentiment shifted toward relief, though users still expressed concern about enforcement risk under private lawsuits and other parts of the law outside registration. (See general reactions — though not cited directly — from SMS/SMS‑law awareness communities as reflected in shared Reddit threads.) (Reddit)
Key Takeaways
| Aspect | Case Study Insight / Commentary |
|---|---|
| Law Expanded (SB 140) | Text messages were treated as telemarketing with registration + bonding duties under Texas telemarketing law. (Sills Cummis & Gross) |
| Industry Reaction Pre‑Settlement | Many firms considered pausing text marketing or rushing registrations due to compliance risk. (Ecommerce Innovation Alliance (EIA)) |
| Legal Clarification | Texas AG and Secretary of State clarified consent‑based SMS marketing does not require registration under Chapter 302. (National Law Review) |
| Practical Impact | Relief for consent‑based marketers; pending registrations can be withdrawn and fees refunded. (Klaviyo) |
| Ongoing Risks | SB 140 still creates private litigation risk and other compliance obligations (opt‑out, quiet hours). (Nixon Peabody LLP) |
| Community View | Marketers initially expressed alarm; post‑clarification relief remains tempered by concern over litigation exposure. (Reddit) |
Bottom Line
The pause on registration requirements for consent‑based marketing in Texas isn’t a repeal of the law — it’s a regulatory clarification via settlement and updated guidance that consent‑only SMS programs are not currently subject to SB 140’s telemarketing registration and bonding requirements. This offers operational clarity and financial relief for businesses relying on opt‑in text marketing, though litigation risk and other compliance duties remain. (National Law Review)