Can I text a mortgage lead I bought

Yes, in the narrow sense that no rule forbids texting a number because you paid for it. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act never asks where a phone number came from. It asks what equipment sent the message, whether the message sells something, and whether the number is on a do-not-call list. Those are three separate questions, and buying the lead answers none of them.

The provision everyone quotes restricts equipment, not origin

47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) makes it unlawful to make a call to a number assigned to cellular service using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, other than for emergency purposes or with the prior express consent of the called party. A text counts as a call here: the Federal Communications Commission held in its 2003 order that the provision reaches both voice calls and text calls to wireless numbers, naming SMS as its example. The words that decide the outcome are the ones after "using".

What the dialer definition leaves out

An automatic telephone dialing system is defined at 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(1), and repeated word for word at 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(2), as equipment with the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers. A list of people who filled in a form is neither random nor sequential. Quoting that provision at a message a person typed to one purchased number cites a rule the message sits outside of. That is the most common error written about this question.

Source: 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) and § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), read on govinfo.gov on 20 September 2026, for the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system as equipment using a random or sequential number generator, and for the restriction on calls to numbers assigned to cellular service made with such equipment or an artificial or prerecorded voice · FCC Report and Order, CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 03-153, paragraph 165, for the holding that the restriction reaches "both voice calls and text calls to wireless numbers including, for example, short message service (SMS) calls" · 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(2), which repeats the dialer definition in the same terms.

Marketing and non-marketing messages sit under different consent standards

47 CFR 64.1200(a)(1) requires prior express consent for an autodialed or prerecorded message to a wireless number. 64.1200(a)(2) raises that where the message includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing: there the standard is prior express written consent. 64.1200(f)(9) defines the written form, down to the signature, the named seller, the number the messages may go to, the clear and conspicuous disclosure, and the rule that signing cannot be a condition of buying anything.

What actually reaches a message typed by a person

Because the dialer provision turns on equipment, the live constraint on a hand-sent marketing text is elsewhere. 47 CFR 64.1200(c)(2) bars a telephone solicitation to a residential subscriber on the national do-not-call registry, 64.1200(d) requires the sender to keep its own internal do-not-call list with written procedures and trained staff, and 64.1200(e) applies both to telemarketing text messages sent to wireless numbers. The FCC decided in 2003 that wireless subscribers may register, and presumed those who do to be residential subscribers.

Source: 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(1), (a)(2), (c)(2), (d), (e) and (f)(9), read through the eCFR renderer on 20 September 2026, for prior express consent on an autodialed or prerecorded message, the higher prior express written consent standard where the message is an advertisement or telemarketing and what that written agreement must contain, the national registry and internal do-not-call duties, and the extension of both to telemarketing text messages sent to wireless numbers · FCC Report and Order, CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 03-153, paragraphs 36 and 166, for the decision that wireless subscribers may register on the national do-not-call list and the presumption that those who do are residential subscribers.

A purchase moves the record, not the permission

Consent under these rules runs to a seller, and a sale of the record is not an assignment of it. The registry exemption at 64.1200(c)(2)(ii) still asks for a signed agreement in which the consumer agrees to be contacted by that named seller, and it survived the end of the FCC's one-to-one consent rule, which the Eleventh Circuit vacated in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC on 24 January 2025. What such a record has to contain, and who answers for the call, is covered in what TCPA consent on a mortgage lead means.

Revocation, and the clock it starts

47 CFR 64.1200(a)(10) lets a called party revoke consent by any reasonable method. Replying stop, quit, end, revoke, opt out, cancel or unsubscribe to an incoming text is reasonable per se, other wording counts if a reasonable person would read it that way, and no sender may designate an exclusive means of revoking. The request must be honoured within a reasonable time not exceeding ten business days. A sender whose protocol cannot receive replies must disclose that clearly on every message and offer another way out.

Two details matter for texting specifically. 64.1200(a)(12) permits one confirmation message, so long as it merely confirms the request, carries no marketing or promotional content, and is the last thing sent. And most of (a)(10) has applied since 11 April 2025, with one carve-out under a waiver: the requirement to apply a revocation to unrelated future robocalls and robotexts from the same sender runs to 31 January 2027. The mechanics are at revocation of consent.

Delivery is decided by carriers, and that is not law

A third layer sits underneath and is routinely mistaken for the first. Before a business message reaches a United States mobile subscriber it passes carriers that run their own registration and filtering regime for application-to-person traffic. That regime is private carrier policy, set by contract, not by the Commission or by statute. A message can satisfy every rule above and still not arrive, and one that arrives is not lawful because it arrived. The registration side is covered at A2P 10DLC.

This page describes published rules and the dates they carry. It is not legal advice, and whether a particular message to a particular number is lawful turns on facts no page can see, including state law that this one does not reach. That call belongs to your own compliance counsel.

Source: 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(10) and (a)(12) and 64.1200(c)(2)(ii), read through the eCFR renderer on 20 September 2026, for the revocation methods, the per se wording, the ten business days, the bar on an exclusive means, the no-reply disclosure, the single confirmation message, and the signed agreement naming the seller · FCC Order DA 25-312, adopted and released 7 April 2025, which records 11 April 2025 as the compliance date for 64.1200(a)(10) and granted a limited waiver of the requirement to treat a revocation made in response to one type of message as applicable to all future robocalls and robotexts from that caller on unrelated matters · FCC Order DA 26-12, adopted and released 6 January 2026, which extended that same waiver to 31 January 2027 and states that it does not alter the status quo for any other rule or ruling on revocation · Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, 11th Cir., 24 January 2025. No figure for how many texts are delivered or answered appears on this page, because no primary source publishes one.