TaskBlink Data13 min readIs It Legal to Cold Text TaskBlink Data Contacts? Yes. Here Is the Proof.
Checked against official sources on October 26, 2026.
Yes. Texting the businesses in a TaskBlink Data file with a business-to-business offer is legal.
You don't have to take our word for it. Every statement below links to the statute, regulation, court opinion or government page it comes from. Click any link and read the words yourself. The answer comes from the law itself, not from us.
Contents
The answer in one minute
Every number is a business's own published number. It is the main phone number on the business's own claimed Google Business Profile. Google's rule is that this number "should always be the single, authoritative phone number" for the business (Google Business Profile guidelines).
No number is on the National Do Not Call Registry. Every number is scrubbed within the last 31 days, and confirmed again at the moment of export. The FTC says, "The Registry is for personal phone numbers. Business phone numbers and fax lines are not covered" (FTC).
Federal courts treat published business numbers as business lines. In August 2026, a federal court ruled for a company that texted a sole proprietor's cell phone. That phone was on the registry, on a consumer plan, and billed to his home. The court held that "no reasonable jury could find that the 4132 number was a residential number" (Newell v. JR Capital).
The autodialer rule needs a random or sequential number generator. The Supreme Court ruled on that unanimously (Facebook v. Duguid). A TaskBlink file is a list of specific, named businesses.
The FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule exempts business-to-business offers. It exempts "Telephone calls between a telemarketer and any business to induce the purchase of goods or services" (16 CFR 310.6(b)(7)).
Each of the 37 states has its own reason. Each one is quoted from that state's statute in the table below.
The court record is clean. No reported court decision has held a sender liable for texting a number that was on no do-not-call registry and was published by the business on its Google Business Profile.
The rest of this article shows each of these points in the source's own words.
What you are actually texting
Whether a text is legal depends on who receives it. A TaskBlink record is built so the answer is always the same: a business, at the number it chose to publish.
Claimed profiles only. TaskBlink reads each live Google Maps listing. Google shows a "Claim this business" link on any profile its owner hasn't claimed, and no business with that link can be in the set. Listings in the set are re-checked daily, and every listing is re-checked at least every 4 weeks. The export refuses any business not marked claimed at that moment.
The business's own published number. The record uses only the main phone number the business publishes on its own Google Business Profile.
Verified mobile with a live carrier lookup. A number qualifies only when the carrier lookup returns exactly "mobile."
Do Not Call scrubbed. Every number is scrubbed against the National Do Not Call Registry and the state do-not-call lists for Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming. Every number is scrubbed within the last 31 days, and confirmed again at the moment of export.
Litigator scrubbed. Every number is checked against a national list of known TCPA litigators. If a litigator's number appears on a listing, that business is kept out of the set.
37 jurisdictions. The business's Google listing address is in one of 36 states or the District of Columbia.
Dated. A file is accurate as of its order date.
Google's own rules show who stands behind that phone number. "Only business owners or authorized representatives may verify and manage their business information on a Business Profile," and the phone number "should always be the single, authoritative phone number and website for the business and be verifiable by the business owner" (Google Business Profile guidelines). Google also states, "Only verified businesses can show their business info on Maps and Search" (Google Business Profile Help).
Each number in a TaskBlink file got there because the business owner put it in front of the public as the way to reach the business.
Federal law: four rules, four reasons
Four federal rules apply to marketing texts. Each depends on a fact that a TaskBlink record does not have.
1. The Do Not Call Registry
The federal registry rule protects "A residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry" (47 CFR 64.1200(c)(2)). That protection has two parts, and a TaskBlink record has neither one.
The number is not registered. Every TaskBlink number is scrubbed within the last 31 days, and confirmed again at the moment of export. The federal rule measures a sender's registry check by a version "obtained from the administrator of the registry no more than 31 days prior to the date any call is made" (47 CFR 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(D)). TaskBlink's scrub runs on that same 31-day standard.
The number is a business number. The FTC states, "The Registry is for personal phone numbers. Business phone numbers and fax lines are not covered" (FTC). It also says, "The prohibition on calls to numbers on the Registry does not apply to business-to-business calls" (FTC, Complying with the Telemarketing Sales Rule).
2. Residential lines and the internal do-not-call rule
The federal internal do-not-call rule also applies only to calls to "a residential telephone subscriber" (47 CFR 64.1200(d)). Federal courts have decided what makes a number residential, and the test is how the owner holds the number out to the public.
Newell v. JR Capital (E.D. Pa., August 17, 2026) is the closest case to TaskBlink's market (opinion):
- The plaintiff ran "a home-based landscaping business."
- His number was "wireless, registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, assigned to a consumer cell phone plan, and billed to his home address."
- The sender got his number from a commercial database it bought from Dun & Bradstreet, which the court described as "a company that provides businesses' contact information."
- The messages were texts advertising business financing.
The court adopted the Ninth Circuit's factors for deciding residential status, starting with "(1) how the plaintiff holds the phone number out to the public." It held that "Newell held out the 4132 number as a business number to the public." It also held that Newell's conduct "induced JR Capital to reasonably believe the 4132 number was his business's contact number," and that JR Capital "'rightfully relie[d] and act[ed] on such belief' during the period it sent the texts." The court noted that "each of Newell's claims requires the 4132 number to be residential," and it granted the sender summary judgment "on all three counts."
The plaintiff in Newell had more going for him than anyone in a TaskBlink file. His number was on the registry, on a consumer plan, and billed to his home. He still lost, because he had put the number out as his business's number. TaskBlink numbers are not on the registry, and each one is the main number on a claimed Google Business Profile.
Other courts have reached the same result:
Bank v. Independence Energy Group (E.D.N.Y. 2015). A number held out "to the general public as a business line… should not be considered 'residential' for the purposes of the TCPA, even if it is registered as 'residential' with the telephone company." The court also held that "No reasonable juror could find that the Subject Telephone is residential" (opinion).
Shelton v. Target Advance (E.D. Pa. 2019). "Because Plaintiff held the Phone Number out to the world as a business phone number, he could not register it on the National Do Not Call Registry for purposes of avoiding business-to-business calls" (opinion).
Worsham v. Discount Power (D. Md. 2021). "Business numbers are not permitted to be registered on the DNC registry" (opinion).
3. The autodialer rule
The federal autodialer rule covers "any automatic telephone dialing system." The statute defines that as equipment with the capacity "to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator" (47 U.S.C. 227(a)(1)).
The Supreme Court held, without a single dissent, that "a device must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator, or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator" (Facebook v. Duguid). The Eighth Circuit then held that a system sending promotional texts to numbers drawn from a database of customer information is not an autodialer (Beal v. Outfield Brew House).
A TaskBlink file is a list of specific, named businesses, and you import it into GoHighLevel or download it as a CSV. Nothing in it is generated at random or in sequence. The rule's other half covers "an artificial or prerecorded voice," and a text has no voice.
4. The FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule
The FTC's rule exempts "Telephone calls between a telemarketer and any business to induce the purchase of goods or services... by the business" (16 CFR 310.6(b)(7)). In the FTC's own words, "Most phone calls between a telemarketer and a business are exempt from the TSR" (FTC). A TaskBlink file is made up of businesses, and the offer is made to the business.
Two more federal rulings worth knowing
Texts can't be sued over under the registry statute in the Seventh Circuit. On July 14, 2026, the court held, "Because we conclude that § 227(c)(5) does not permit plaintiffs to sue for the receipt of unwanted texts, we affirm." It added that unwanted texts "do not fall within the private right of action created by § 227(c)(5)" (Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services). That ruling binds every federal court in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.
Courts read the statute's actual words. The Supreme Court held in 2025 that "The District Court is not bound by the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA" (McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson). Every federal point in this article is quoted from those words.
The cases people bring up
The cases people raise are real. Read them, and in every case below where the plaintiff got past a motion, the number was on the National Do Not Call Registry.
| Case | Was the number on the registry? | How was it held out? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chennette v. Porch (9th Cir. 2022) | Yes: "registered on the national do-not-call registry" | On Yelp and Facebook | A pleading-stage ruling. The court said the defendants could later show the phones were "properly regarded as business rather than 'residential' lines." |
| Mattson v. New Penn Financial (D. Or. 2020) | Yes | Used "primarily for personal use" and "not listed on Westland Investors's website as business phone lines" | Went to a jury question |
| Jackson v. Direct Building Supplies (M.D. Pa. 2024) | Yes | "used for personal calls only, and not associated with a business" | A pleading-stage ruling |
| Newell v. JR Capital (E.D. Pa. 2026) | Yes | Held out as a business number | Sender won on all three counts |
Each of the first three cases turned on a registered number that the owner said was a personal phone. A TaskBlink number is the opposite on both counts: it is not on the registry, and it is a business's published main line. In Newell, the court looked at a published business number on the full record, and the sender won.
State law: all 37, in their own words
TaskBlink Data covers 36 states and the District of Columbia. Each state has its own telemarketing statute. Here is the reason each one allows these texts, quoted from the state's own law.
| State | What the state's law says | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | A telephone solicitation is "A voice communication over a telephone line." A text is not a voice communication. | Code of Alabama 8-19A-3 |
| Arizona | A telephone solicitation is "any voice communication from a live operator, announcing device or otherwise." The text rule in 44-1282 applies to numbers on the national registry, and those are removed. | A.R.S. 44-1271, A.R.S. 44-1282 |
| Arkansas | The do-not-call law covers a person assigned "any residential telephone line and corresponding telephone number." | Ark. Code 4-99-403 |
| Connecticut | The definition excludes a call or message "sent as part of a business-to-business contact." | Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-284 |
| Delaware | The chapter exempts telemarketing "in connection with any sale of goods or services by a business supplier to a business or between businesses." | 6 Del. C. 2505A |
| District of Columbia | Telemarketing excludes a communication "To provide information to a consumer and in which payment for the sale of good or services is not accepted in that telephone call." | D.C. Code 22-3226.01 |
| Florida | The Act covers "consumer goods or services." A federal court held that "a business loan is not a consumer good or service." | Fla. Stat. 501.059, National Law Review |
| Georgia | A telephone solicitation is "any voice communication over a telephone line." A court noted "that text messages do not constitute 'telephone solicitation'" under the statute. | O.C.G.A. 46-5-27, Holcombe v. DirecTV |
| Hawaii | Telemarketing is conducted "by use of one or more telephones and that involves more than one telephone call." | Haw. Rev. Stat. 481P-1 |
| Idaho | The no-call law exempts "a telephone subscriber's commercial or business telephone number." | Idaho Code 48-1003A |
| Illinois | A solicitation is a communication "by live operators." | 815 ILCS 413 |
| Indiana | A consumer is "a residential telephone subscriber." | IC 24-4.7-2-2 |
| Iowa | The relevant chapter covers merchandise "primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." | Iowa Code chapter 714H |
| Kansas | The covered contact is "a call made by a telephone solicitor." | K.S.A. 50-670 |
| Kentucky | The definition excludes "A telephone call made by one (1) merchant to another." | KRS 367.46951 |
| Louisiana | The protected subscriber is a person "who has subscribed to residential telephonic service." | La. R.S. 45:844.12 |
| Maine | A consumer is "a resident of this State who is a residential telephone subscriber." | 10 M.R.S. 1499-B |
| Massachusetts | A federal court held that "the statutory prohibition against certain 'calls' or 'telephonic calls' does not apply to text messages." | Jones v. SAFR Technologies |
| Michigan | A telephone solicitation is "any voice communication over a telephone." | MCL 445.111 |
| Minnesota | A commercial telephone solicitation is an "unsolicited call to a residential subscriber." | Minn. Stat. 325E.26 |
| Missouri | The no-call list "is not intended to include any telephone number primarily used for business or commercial purposes." | RSMo 407.1101 |
| Montana | Telemarketing is a plan "conducted by telephone" that "involves more than one telephone call to a consumer." | Mont. Code Ann. 30-14-1403 |
| Nebraska | A consumer buys goods or services "bought primarily for use for personal, family, or household purposes." | Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-214 |
| Nevada | "Nevada has adopted the Nevada portion of the National Do Not Call Registry," and registry numbers are removed. | Nevada Attorney General, NRS 228.590 |
| New Hampshire | "Telemarketing shall not include the solicitation of sales through media other than by telephone calls." | RSA 359-E |
| New Mexico | A telephone solicitation is "a voice or telefacsimile communication over a telephone line." | NMSA 57-12-22 |
| New York | A customer is "any natural person who is a resident of this state." | N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 399-z |
| North Carolina | A telephone subscriber is "An individual who subscribes to a residential telephone service." | G.S. 75-101 |
| North Dakota | A subscriber is "a person who has subscribed to a residential telephone line." | N.D.C.C. ch. 51-28 |
| Oregon | Telephone solicitation does not include "a business to business call or text message." | ORS 646.561 |
| South Carolina | The Act covers "a text or media message sent" to a South Carolina wireless number. Texts to numbers that are not on the National Do Not Call Registry are allowed with no prior-consent requirement. | S.C. Code Title 37, Chapter 21 |
| South Dakota | "The provisions of this chapter do not apply to a transaction" in which the business "is establishing a business-to-business relationship." | SDCL 37-30A-8 |
| Tennessee | The protected subscriber is a person "who has subscribed to residential telephone service." | Tenn. Code 65-4-401 |
| Virginia | The Act limits texts "to a telephone number on the National Do Not Call Registry," and registry numbers are removed. | Va. Code 59.1-514 |
| West Virginia | "The provisions of this article do not apply to a business-to-business sale." | W. Va. Code 46A-6F-206 |
| Wisconsin | "A telephone call or text message made to a number listed in the current local business telephone directory" is excluded. | ATCP 127, subchapter V |
| Wyoming | Consumer goods or services are "marketed and intended to be used for personal, family or household purposes." | W.S. 40-12-301 |
No state matches that.
Each state also has a full TaskBlink article that quotes every relevant provision of its law.
Why there are 37 and not 50
TaskBlink did not start with all 50 states and argue its way to yes. It read every state's statute word by word and kept the jurisdictions where the text of the law supports a clear yes for this data. That left 36 states and the District of Columbia. Alaska, California, Colorado, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Washington are not in the product. A business only enters the set when its Google listing address is in one of the 37.
The court record
No reported court decision has held a sender liable for texting a number that was on no do-not-call registry and was published by the business on its Google Business Profile.
The bottom line
Here is what a TaskBlink record is:
- A business's own published main number.
- A verified mobile with a live carrier lookup.
- Scrubbed within the last 31 days, and confirmed again at the moment of export.
- Located in one of 37 jurisdictions.
Here is what each rule needs, and why it doesn't apply:
- The federal registry rule needs a registered residential number. These numbers aren't registered, and they aren't residential.
- The internal do-not-call rule needs a residential subscriber. A federal court held that a published business number is not residential.
- The autodialer rule needs a random or sequential number generator. A named list involves none.
- The FTC's rule exempts business-to-business offers.
- Each of the 37 states has its own reason, quoted above.
So, is it legal? Yes. Every link above lets you check that answer for yourself.
Sources and verification
All sources were checked on October 26, 2026.
Google Business Profile: Business eligibility and ownership guidelines
Google Business Profile Help: Find your business on Google
FTC: National Do Not Call Registry FAQs
https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/national-do-not-call-registry-faqs
FTC: Complying with the Telemarketing Sales Rule
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/complying-telemarketing-sales-rule
47 U.S.C. 227
47 CFR 64.1200
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-64/subpart-L/section-64.1200
16 CFR 310.6
Facebook v. Duguid (U.S. 2021)
McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson (U.S. 2025)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1226_1a72.pdf
Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services (7th Cir. 2026)
Newell v. JR Capital (E.D. Pa. 2026)
Bank v. Independence Energy Group (E.D.N.Y. 2015)
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914ecfdadd7b0493495029b
Shelton v. Target Advance (E.D. Pa. 2019)
Worsham v. Discount Power (D. Md. 2021)
https://www2.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/Worsham Mem Op and Ord.pdf
Beal v. Outfield Brew House (8th Cir. 2022)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/20-1961/20-1961-2022-03-24.html
Chennette v. Porch (9th Cir. 2022)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35962/20-35962-2022-10-12.html
Mattson v. New Penn Financial (D. Or. 2020)
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9926099/mattson-v-new-penn-financial-llc/
Jackson v. Direct Building Supplies (M.D. Pa. 2024)
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9947552/jackson-v-direct-building-supplies-llc/
Brown v. Care Front Funding (M.D. Fla. 2023), reported
Jones v. SAFR Technologies (D. Mass.)
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-3_24-cv-13082/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-3_24-cv-13082-0.pdf
Holcombe v. DirecTV
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7322483/holcombe-v-directv-llc/
Nevada Attorney General: Do Not Call Registry
State statutes