Zach Isn’t Wrong… But Here’s What Everyone’s Missing About SB 140

(Before reading this post, watch Zach’s video for context)

When Zach broke down the TCPA, I’ll admit — he’s right. Federal courts (Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer, Aussieker v. Aghazadeh) have ruled that offers to buy a house aren’t “telephone solicitations.” On the federal side, wholesalers are in the clear.

But here’s what’s missing: Texas didn’t just mirror federal law. SB 140 was written intentionally broader. They added one word — “receive.”

That word is the problem.

Why? Because when you text a homeowner, they aren’t just selling — they’re being induced to receive something: your offer, your contract, or even money at closing. A Texas court could easily interpret that as solicitation. And since SB 140 ties directly into the DTPA (Deceptive Trade Practices Act), you’re exposed to consumer lawsuits, $5,000 penalties, and treble damages.

Now, here’s where accountability comes in. If I interpret the law one way, someone else may interpret it differently — and both can sound reasonable. There’s no case law yet in Texas that disputes Zach’s argument. But for me, I’d rather spend my time building my business than defending myself in court. That’s what works for me and my family.

So, is texting banned? Absolutely not. But it’s no longer business as usual. You have to be strategic and make sure you understand how the law applies to your operation. Because if you ever land in court, “Zach said it was fine” won’t save you — and neither will ignorance.

⚖️ Bottom Line

Cold-texting homeowners in Texas without precautions is a liability risk. That’s why I don’t run my business that way.

At the end of the day, it’s not about whether Zach is right. It’s about whether you can afford to be wrong. Being your own boss, means defining and evaluating risks to reward. Remember it is all on you!

This is my interpretation—not legal advice.

0 comments