0

I frequently receive unsolicited fundraising and promotional messages on my cell phone via SMS. The majority of these end with a statement like "STOP to end" or "STOP to opt out."

My lay-understanding is that this is done pursuant to a law (CAN-SPAM?) that obligates certain classes of sender to provide this explicit instruction with every message, and to honor it if the recipient replies with the word "STOP". Somewhat less frequently, these messages instead conclude with the phrase "End2End" or "End to End", apparently for the same purpose.

But today I had a strange experience: I received an "End to End" message (from a political campaign), and, wishing to opt out, I replied with "END"... and then a moment later, skeptical and a bit curious, I sent "STOP" as well. Shortly thereafter, I received this message:

NETWORK MSG: You replied with the word "stop" which blocks all texts sent from this number. Text back "unstop" or "start" to receive messages again.

Notably, it did not mention my "END" reply, only my "STOP" reply. This message is the only reply I received from the sender, and the entire exchange occurred within 1 minute.

Reflecting on this experience, it occurs to me that if the relevant law specifically blesses only the STOP 'protocol,' then perhaps these End2End messages are attempts by unscrupulous mass-mailers to trick recipients into believing that their rights are being respected, all the while providing a gossamer-thin justification to ignore any "End" replies and say that no legitimate unsubscribe request was received.

Is there any legal difference between END and STOP?

Improve this question
1
  • Could be contractual - when I worked at a place that sent SMS, we had two "bulk" options available: a more expensive option for "marketing" and a cheaper option with a high charge per "STOP" intended for "solicited SMS". Maybe they're using the cheap option and trying to avoid the penalty? Commented Dec 12, 2025 at 10:46

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

There is no legal difference between END and STOP.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, codified at 47 U.S.C. §227, prohibits an unsolicited text advertisement unless, among other things, it includes a notice that "states that the recipient may make a request to the sender of the unsolicited advertisement not to send any future unsolicited advertisements."

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is required to make regulations setting out the requirements of that notice.

The FCC has promulgated a regulation at 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(10) that says:

A called party may revoke prior express consent, including prior express written consent, to receive calls or text messages made pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) and (c)(2) of this section by using any reasonable method to clearly express a desire not to receive further calls or text messages from the caller or sender. Any revocation request made using an automated, interactive voice or key press-activated opt-out mechanism on a call; using the words “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe” sent in reply to an incoming text message; or pursuant to a website or telephone number designated by the caller to process opt-out requests constitutes a reasonable means per se to revoke consent. If a called party uses any such method to revoke consent, that consent is considered definitively revoked and the caller may not send additional robocalls and robotexts. If a reply to an incoming text message uses words other than “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe,” the caller must treat that reply text as a valid revocation request if a reasonable person would understand those words to have conveyed a request to revoke consent.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.