So to a TCPA defendant down in Florida the phrase “No Stop” apparently means “yes continue” and that’s just a little too date rapey for me.

In Blosley v. A Bradley Hospitality 2025 WL 2686984 (S.D. Fl. Sept 19, 2025) a Plaintiff allegedly responded “no stop” to a series of allegedly unwanted text messages from the Defendant.

Rather than accept this as a revocation of consent, the Defendant went full drunken frat boy and argued “no stop” actually meant Plaintiff wanted the messages to continue.

In the Defendant’s view the phrase should be read to say “don’t stop” as opposed to “no, stop.” In fact Defendant argued that not only was Plaintiff’s phrase not a revocation but it was ACTUALLY AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT to continue the messaging:

Defendant contends that pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(1), there can be no TCPA violation where a plaintiff expressly consents to receiving the text and has not otherwise revoked that consent since that individual would no longer be on the entity’s do-notcall list. Defendant argues that the phrase “No stop” indicated to the Defendant that it should continue to send the telemarketing messages to Plaintiff’s phone number and therefore it did not need to put Plaintiff on its internal do-not-call list. The Court finds Defendant’s argument unpersuasive.

“Unpersuasive” is putting it mildly.

To be fair to defendant, the message plaintiff responded to included a “reply stop to opt out” prompt so saying “no stop” might be viewed as a directive not to stop the messages. Its one of those double negative situations I guess.

But I must say I agree with the court on this one. If someone texts “no stop” you should be “yes stopping.”

Chat soon.