Text Messaging Laws by State

Key Takeaways

• Text messages sent or received by government officials during public business are considered public records in all 50 states, though specific laws and exemptions vary.
• Federal laws like the Federal Records Act and FOIA apply to text messages at the federal level, while each state has its own public records or freedom of information act.
• Text messages can be used as evidence in court if they meet authentication, relevance and integrity requirements.
• Screenshots of text messages are unreliable as evidence because they lack metadata and can be easily manipulated.
• Government agencies need a text message archiving solution to capture, retain and produce messages for FOIA requests, ediscovery, and audits.

Introduction

A single unarchived text message can derail a FOIA response, expose an agency to litigation, or create a compliance gap that takes months to close.

Public sector employees rely on texting for day-to-day operations, but most agencies don’t have a clear picture of how each state treats those messages under public records law.

Federal and state governments have established specific rules for how text messages must be retained, disclosed and produced in response to public records requests. The challenge is that these rules differ across all 50 states, and many agencies are still catching up.

In this guide, you’ll learn:

• The admissibility of text messages in court
• If text messages are considered public records
• The legal standing of text message screenshots as evidence
• A detailed breakdown of text messaging laws by state

Federal Laws That Apply to Text Message Records

Federal Records Act

The Federal Records Act applies when text messages are created or received as part of federal government business. If a message documents agency activity, decisions or operations, it may need to be retained as a federal record just like an email or memorandum. The format does not control the obligation; the content and business purpose do.

Stored Communications Act (SCA)

The Stored Communications Act limits how service providers and other third parties can disclose private electronic communications, including text messages. This matters when organizations assume they can retrieve historical texts directly from a carrier. In practice, agencies cannot rely on the SCA framework as a substitute for their own capture and retention processes.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)

The TCPA is most often associated with marketing and consent requirements, but it can also affect government agencies that send outbound text notifications. Agencies should review whether consent, opt-out language and message purpose create TCPA exposure, especially when using automated messaging tools. This is a separate issue from public records retention, but it can still affect compliance programs.

FOIA at the Federal Level

At the federal level, text messages tied to agency business can be responsive to FOIA requests even when they were sent from a personal device. That is why agencies need consistent preservation, search and retrieval processes across all communication channels. Many teams use FOIA management software alongside archiving workflows to locate and produce those records defensibly.

Can Texts Be Used in Court?

Text messages are viable digital evidence in the eyes of the court for both civil and criminal litigation.

Under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 901(b)(1), electronic records like text messages can be authenticated through testimony from a witness with knowledge of what the messages are and where they came from.

To be considered evidence and be usable in court, text messages need to meet certain criteria:

• Authenticity — The text messages need authentication to verify they were sent and received by the parties involved.
• Relevance — The messages must directly be related to the case. Only texts that pertain to the matters at hand will be considered.
• Message integrity — It is crucial to prove that the messages have not been tampered with or changed from their original form.
• Chain of custody — Courts may also look at how the messages were collected, retained, and transferred to ensure the evidence remained intact from capture through production.

For instance, if a government employee’s text messages are subpoenaed in a wrongful termination case, the agency must prove that the messages were preserved in their original form and were not selectively deleted or altered.

However, even if all three criteria are met, the viability of text messages as evidence and their impact on the case varies state by state.

Text messages in ediscovery

Text messages are increasingly requested in litigation holds and ediscovery because important business conversations often happen outside email.

Without a proper archiving system, producing text messages in response to a discovery request can be slow, incomplete or impossible. This is why organizations often rely on ediscovery tools that preserve metadata, legal hold status and defensible export workflows.

Are Text Messages Public Records?

Yes, text messages can be considered public records, depending on the context and jurisdiction.

In many states within the U.S., if the text messages are sent or received by government officials or employees in the course of conducting public business, they are often subject to public records laws.

These laws vary by state, but generally, any communication that pertains to official duties, regardless of the medium, can be subject to public records requests and retention requirements.

In most states, the definition of a public record is format-neutral. That means the medium (e.g., paper, email or text message) does not change whether a communication must be retained or disclosed if it documents official business.

Here are a couple of examples:

• State and local governments — Many states have specific laws that define what constitutes a public record. If a government employee uses text messaging to discuss public business, those messages may need to be preserved and could be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or similar state laws, such as Sunshine Laws.
• Federal government — At the federal level, communications of government officials, including text messages, may be considered public records under the Federal Records Act and can be subject to FOIA requests.

Personal devices and BYOD considerations

In most states, the content of the message determines whether it is a public record, not the device it was sent from.

That means work-related texts sent from a personally owned phone may still be subject to disclosure, retention and litigation hold obligations.

Agencies should have clear policies for employees who use personal devices for government business, including how those messages will be captured, archived, and retrieved. This is one reason organizations adopt text message archiving solutions that support both BYOD and agency-issued devices.

As for the retention requirements, public agencies are often required to archive text messages for a specified period, ensuring they can be accessed in response to public records requests.

Agencies need to have text message retention policies and systems in place to capture and archive these messages to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

It’s important for public officials and employees to be aware of their obligations regarding text messages and other forms of electronic communication to ensure transparency and accountability in government operations.

Text Messaging Laws by State: All 50 States

Every state has its own laws and regulations regarding text messaging and how they can be used as evidence. Use the following table to quickly find the exact state’s text messaging laws you’re looking for.

Alabama

The Alabama Public Records Law provides access to “public writings”, which includes electronic records.

Though it does not directly reference text or instant messages, they aren’t treated differently than any other form of electronic communication subject to the Public Records Law.

When law enforcement demands cell phone location data, only the name of the officer making the request and the date of the request are subject to the Open Records Act, and can only be disclosed after the conclusion of the criminal investigation or prosecution.

Alaska

In Alaska, the Public Records Act includes communications sent or received by public officials in the execution of their official duties.

While text messages are not explicitly mentioned, they fall under the definition of public records if they concern public business. Privacy laws ensure that texts are only accessible under certain conditions to protect the integrity of personal information.

Disclosure requirements do not cover personal texts of government officials unless they pertain directly to public affairs.

Arizona

Arizona’s Public Records Law covers all records, including texts, related to official business conducted by public officials.

The state assumes that all records, electronic or otherwise, that have a substantial link to governmental activities should be accessible to the public.

However, this accessibility is subject to exclusions for personal privacy and sensitive information.

Specific statutes require that any requests for these records must clearly specify the documents sought and prove their relevance to government business.

Arkansas

Arkansas’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) defines public records as writings, videos, tapes, audio, and electronic information prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by a public agency.

Text messages that involve any government-related communications by state officials are considered public records and are thus subject to disclosure under this act.

There are significant limitations regarding the personal privacy of individuals, ensuring that texts of a purely private nature are exempt from disclosure.

California

California’s Public Records Act (CPRA) treats electronic communications, including text messages, as public records if they are used to conduct public business.

According to text messaging laws by the state of California, this applies regardless of whether the communication device is personally owned or provided by the government. California residents may also have data access and deletion rights under the CCPA, though those rights operate separately from public records obligations.

Certain exemptions protect personal privacy and security, and any texts that do not pertain to public affairs may be withheld from disclosure.

Colorado

Colorado’s Open Records Act (CORA) includes provisions for the disclosure of electronic records, including text messages related to the conduct of public business by state officials.

However, personal texts and communications unrelated to official duties are exempt. Additionally, there are strict rules protecting sensitive information from being disclosed.

Colorado law requires that all requests for public records be submitted in writing and be specific about the records sought.

Connecticut

Under Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), all records of public agencies are available to the public unless specifically exempt by law.

This includes text messages sent or received in connection with the conduct of public business. The state emphasizes transparency but also respects privacy when it comes to purely personal communications that do not involve state affairs.

Connecticut’s law also includes provisions to prevent the disclosure of information that would legally invade personal privacy. Separately, Connecticut is one of the states with penalties of up to $20,000 for certain unsolicited commercial text message violations.

Delaware

Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) includes all electronic records, such as text messages, if they are related to public business and are produced by, or for, a public body.

Delaware’s FOIA protects personal information and communications unrelated to public duties, thereby securing privacy for personal texts of government officials.

Florida

Florida’s Sunshine Law is one of the most comprehensive public records laws in the United States, covering all materials made or received by public officials in the course of their official duties, including text messages.

Florida law requires these records to be available for public inspection unless specifically exempted by the state legislature. Florida’s Sunshine Law is widely considered one of the broadest in the country and has been tested in court multiple times regarding electronic records.

Texts that involve security, criminal investigative information, or are purely personal are exempt from disclosure under this law.

Georgia

Georgia’s Open Records Act explicitly includes electronic communications, such as emails and text messages, within its definition of public records.

As long as these communications are related to public business and not purely personal affairs, they must be retained and accessible to the public.

Exceptions include records that would compromise security against criminal or terroristic acts, or invade personal privacy.

Hawaii

Hawaii’s Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) classifies all government records, including electronic communications like text messages, as public unless specifically exempted.

This openness is designed to enhance transparency in government operations.

Exemptions include texts that involve personal privacy, and proprietary information, or could threaten public safety if disclosed.

Idaho

Idaho’s Public Records Law covers electronic communications related to public business, defining these as part of public records.

Text messages sent or received by government officials in the course of performing their duties are accessible to the public, barring any content that involves purely personal matters or is protected under specific privacy exemptions.

Idaho emphasizes the necessity to balance public access with individual privacy protections.

Illinois

The Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) stipulates that all governmental records, including electronic communications like text messages, are presumed open to the public.

This presumption applies unless there is a specific exemption that justifies withholding a record.

Illinois law protects sensitive personal information and any private communications unrelated to public duties.

Indiana

Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act includes provisions that treat text messages as public records if they are used in the official conduct of public business.

The state ensures that public access to such records fosters accountability.

Personal texts or those not related to public business are not subject to disclosure under this act.

Iowa

Iowa’s Public Records Law considers all forms of electronic communication, including text messages, as public records if they pertain to public business.

This inclusion is part of the state’s commitment to transparency and public oversight of governmental activities.

Exemptions include personal communications and any records that, if disclosed, would jeopardize individual privacy or safety.

Kansas

Kansas Open Records Act explicitly mentions electronic records in its coverage, thereby including text messages within the ambit of public documentation if they relate to government business.

Kansas protects records that contain personal details or are related to security measures from public access.

Kentucky

Kentucky’s Open Records Act includes text messages under the umbrella of public records if they are related to the conduct of public business.

Kentucky law protects personal communications and any sensitive security-related information from public disclosure.

Louisiana

Louisiana’s Public Records Law treats all records, including text messages, as public if they are created, received, or retained in the conduct of public business.

This broad inclusiveness aims to facilitate an open government.

Exceptions are made for personal privacy and communications that may affect public security if disclosed.

Maine

The Maine Freedom of Access Act covers electronic records, including text messages, under its definition of public records.

Text messages must relate to public business to be considered public records and thus accessible to the public.

Maine specifically exempts private communications that do not pertain to state business and any record whose disclosure would constitute an invasion of privacy.

Maryland

Maryland’s Public Information Act recognizes electronic communications, including texts, as public records when they pertain to government business.

The state emphasizes the importance of transparency but also acknowledges the need to protect sensitive information and individual privacy.

Maryland excludes personal texts of government officials and any communications that could jeopardize security operations from this accessibility.

Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Public Records Law applies to all governmental records, including text messages related to official duties.

The law ensures that public access to these records is straightforward, promoting transparency and accountability within the state government.

Exceptions are made for records involving personal privacy, and specific guidelines protect sensitive information from being publicly disclosed.

Michigan

Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) defines public records as including electronic communications like text messages if they are used in the performance of an official function.

The state’s strong stance on public access to government records includes detailed provisions for electronic records management. The litigation over former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s text messages is a commonly cited example of work-related texts being treated as public records in Michigan.

Personal and irrelevant communications, as well as any sensitive security details, are not considered public records in Michigan.

Minnesota

Minnesota’s Government Data Practices Act explicitly includes electronic communications, such as text messages, within the definition of government records.

This law mandates that any records related to the conduct of public business are accessible to the public, enhancing transparency and accountability.

Personal texts and those that do not pertain to public duties are exempt from this requirement, as well as texts that could compromise personal privacy or public safety.

Mississippi

Mississippi’s Public Records Act of 1983 ensures that all records, including electronic communications such as text messages, are accessible if they pertain to the conduct of public business.

The state champions transparency, but also balances this with privacy protections.

Text messages that contain personal information or are unrelated to public business are not considered public records under this act.

Missouri

Missouri’s Sunshine Law encompasses electronic records, including text messages, as part of the public record if they relate to public business conducted by government officials.

This inclusion aims to keep governmental operations transparent to the public.

Exceptions are made for records that involve personal privacy issues or security concerns.

Montana

Montana’s Public Records Act treats all forms of electronic communication, including text messages, as public records if they are associated with the conduct of public business.

This law underscores the state’s commitment to an open government.

Personal communications and sensitive security information are protected from disclosure.

Nebraska

Nebraska’s Public Records Laws assert that all governmental communications, including those sent via text message, are considered public records if they pertain to public business.

The state promotes transparency and ensures public access to government operations.

Private texts or those not related to official duties are exempt, and there are stringent protections for personal privacy and security details.

Nevada

Nevada’s Public Records Act includes electronic communications, like text messages, in its definition of public records, provided they relate to the conduct of public business.

This approach is part of Nevada’s broader efforts to ensure governmental transparency and accountability.

Texts that are personal or involve sensitive information are not subject to public disclosure under this act.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s Right to Know Law includes electronic communications, such as text messages, within its scope of accessible public records if they pertain to public business.

This law supports transparency by ensuring that communications by government officials in the conduct of their duties are open to public scrutiny.

Private communications unrelated to public business and those involving sensitive personal or security information are exempt from disclosure.

New Jersey

New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA).pdf) recognizes text messages as public records if they are related to official government business.

The state emphasizes the importance of public access to such records to foster transparency and accountability in governance.

Text messages that are purely personal in nature or that could compromise personal privacy or public security are not accessible under OPRA.

New Mexico

New Mexico’s Inspection of Public Records Act ensures that electronic communications, including text messages, are considered public records when they relate to public business.

This includes communications by government officials and public employees.

The law protects personal texts and any communication that could jeopardize personal privacy or the integrity of state operations.

New York

New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) includes text messages in its definition of public records if they document official business or decisions made by public officials.

The state’s commitment to openness allows public access to these communications, subject to certain limitations to protect personal privacy and security.

Exemptions include personal communications and sensitive information that could endanger individuals if disclosed.

North Carolina

North Carolina’s Public Records Law states that text messages if related to the transaction of public business by government officials, are public records.

This transparency ensures that the public can access and review the conduct of public affairs.

Personal and irrelevant texts, as well as those involving confidential information, are protected from disclosure.

North Dakota

North Dakota’s open records laws define public records to include electronic communications such as text messages when they pertain to public business.

This law promotes transparency and accountability in government operations.

There are specific provisions that safeguard personal privacy and sensitive government information, ensuring that such texts remain confidential.

Ohio

Ohio’s Public Records Act recognizes text messages as public records if they are associated with the conduct of public business by state officials and employees.

This law underscores Ohio’s commitment to government transparency and accountability.

Private communications and texts involving personal or sensitive information are protected from public disclosure.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma’s Open Records Act includes text messages among the types of electronic communications that are considered public records when they relate to the transaction of public business.

The state ensures broad public access to these records to foster transparency.

Exceptions include personal texts and communications that may affect the security or privacy of individuals or operations.

Oregon

Oregon’s Public Records Law broadly defines public records to include text messages related to the conduct of public business.

This definition is part of Oregon’s effort to ensure that all forms of communication used in government operations are transparent and accessible to the public.

The law protects personal privacy by exempting texts that do not pertain to public duties and those containing sensitive personal information.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law defines public records as those that document a transaction or activity by an agency.

This includes electronic communications like text messages, provided they pertain to public business. The state values transparency while also respecting the privacy of non-public communications.

Personal texts or those unrelated to official activities are not considered public records.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island’s Access to Public Records Act (APRA) includes electronic communications such as text messages in its scope, as long as they relate to public business conducted by government officials.

The law is designed to promote open government and accountability.

There are safeguards to protect personal privacy and confidential information from being disclosed.

South Carolina

South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act treats text messages as public records if they are related to the conduct of public business.

This treatment supports the state’s commitment to transparency and ensures that governmental communications are open to public inspection.

Exemptions apply to personal communications and texts involving sensitive information that, if disclosed, could compromise privacy or security.

South Dakota

South Dakota’s Open Records Law asserts that all records, including electronic communications such as text messages, which are related to the conduct of public business, are considered public records.

This law aims to promote transparency and allows the public to access information about government operations.

Texts that are personal in nature or contain sensitive information are exempt from disclosure to protect individual privacy and security.

Tennessee

Tennessee’s Public Records Act includes text messages as part of the public records if they pertain to official public business conducted by government officials.

The state emphasizes the need for transparency and public oversight of government activities.

Exceptions are made for personal communications and any records whose release could jeopardize personal privacy or public safety.

Texas

Texas Public Information Act categorizes text messages as public records when they are involved in official government business.

This inclusion is part of Texas’s broader initiative to maintain an open government.

There are protections against disclosing personal messages and sensitive information that could harm the public interest if released.

Utah

Utah’s Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) treats all electronic communications, including text messages, as public records if they relate to the conduct of public business.

Utah law is comprehensive in its inclusion of digital communications to ensure government transparency.

Personal or unrelated texts, as well as those containing confidential information, are not subject to public access.

Vermont

Vermont’s Public Records Law recognizes text messages as public records if they are associated with the conduct of public business by government officials.

The state is committed to transparency but also respects the privacy of government officials by exempting purely personal communications from disclosure. This can extend to texts kept on private employee accounts when they relate to agency business.

Specific guidelines protect sensitive information from being accessed by the public.

Virginia

Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) includes text messages in the definition of public records, provided they are related to public business and are prepared, owned, or used by a public body.

Virginia aims to foster openness in government while safeguarding personal privacy and security.

Exclusions apply to personal texts and communications that involve security details or sensitive operations. Separately, the 2020 amendments to the Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act tightened rules around certain unsolicited communications.

Washington

Washington State’s Public Records Act broadly includes electronic communications, such as text messages, as public records when they pertain to the conduct of public business.

This approach is part of the state’s strong commitment to transparency and public access.

Texts that are personal in nature or involve sensitive security information are exempt from disclosure to protect privacy and operational integrity.

West Virginia

West Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) treats electronic communications, including text messages, as public records if they are related to the conduct of public business by government officials.

Personal and non-business-related communications are protected from public disclosure to maintain privacy and confidentiality.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s Public Records Law includes text messages within the scope of public records when they document official public activities or decisions.

The state ensures that these communications are accessible to the public to support transparency and accountability.

There are safeguards in place to protect texts that are personal or not related to government business, as well as sensitive information that could compromise security.

Wyoming

Wyoming’s Public Records Act recognizes all forms of electronic communication, including text messages, as public records if they are made or received in the course of official business.

The law exempts personal communications and any sensitive information that, if disclosed, would jeopardize personal privacy or state security.

Text Message Retention Requirements for Government Agencies

Retention periods for government text messages vary by state, agency and record type.

In many jurisdictions, the retention schedule depends on what the message documents rather than the fact that it was sent by text, which means a routine administrative message may be kept for a shorter period than a policy decision, personnel matter or investigative record.

Common schedules range from three years to seven years, though some records must be retained longer or placed on legal hold when litigation or an investigation is pending.

Agencies should always consult their state records retention schedule and records counsel before applying a deletion policy to text messages.

Carrier retention is not a reliable compliance strategy. Carriers may retain message content for only a limited period, while metadata may be kept longer, so agencies need to archive text messages independently if they want to meet FOIA, audit and ediscovery obligations.

Penalties for Non-Compliance With Text Messaging Laws

When an agency fails to retain or produce responsive text messages, the consequences can go far beyond an administrative inconvenience. Courts may order production, impose sanctions or draw an adverse inference if relevant messages were deleted, altered or never preserved in the first place.

Penalty exposure can also come from overlapping laws. For example, the TCPA can carry statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 per violation, and Connecticut has penalties of up to $20,000 for certain unsolicited commercial text message violations.

Even when there is no fixed dollar amount in a public records statute, failing to produce text messages can create reputational damage, increase litigation risk and undermine trust in an agency’s recordkeeping practices. Spoliation of text message evidence can also affect the outcome of employment disputes, internal investigations and civil litigation.

Archive Text Messages Defensibly With Jatheon

Collect text messages from BYOD and agency-issued devices.
Learn More

Text Message Compliance Checklist for Government Agencies

• Adopt a written text message retention policy that defines what must be preserved, for how long and under which schedule.
• Select an archiving solution that captures SMS and MMS from both personal and agency-issued devices.
• Train employees on when work-related texts become public records and how BYOD rules apply.
• Implement litigation hold procedures that extend to text messages and other mobile communications.
• Conduct periodic audits to confirm messages are being captured, retained and searchable.
• Establish a repeatable process for responding to FOIA and public records requests that include text messages.
• Review exemptions, privacy controls and export workflows with legal, IT and records management teams.

Are Screenshots Enough for Text Message Compliance?

Screenshots of text messages can serve as evidence, but their reliability and admissibility are easy to challenge.

Courts increasingly prefer native digital records with intact metadata, and some have rejected screenshots outright when native records existed but were never produced.

Screenshots fall short in a few specific ways:

• Authenticity — A screenshot is just an image, and Photoshop or AI tools can change it in seconds. That makes it hard to prove the screenshot matches what was actually sent.
• Context and completeness — A screenshot often captures only part of a conversation. Leaving out the messages around it can change what the exchange actually meant.
• Metadata — Screenshots strip out the metadata that proves a message is real: when it was sent and received, who the sender and recipient were, and whether it was edited after the fact. That information is what establishes authenticity and context.
• Chain of custody — Admissible evidence needs a clear chain of custody showing it was preserved and handled without tampering. A screenshot saved to someone’s phone is hard to authenticate this way, compared with records pulled through a controlled collection process.
• Technical limitations — A screenshot can’t show delivery status, read receipts, or attachments like images, videos, and files that may be relevant to the case.

The reliable alternative is to capture messages at the source.

Native digital records pulled with ediscovery tools can be authenticated through technical means, the kind of proof a screenshot can’t offer. Archiving software collects text messages directly from the carrier or device, before anyone has a chance to crop, edit, or lose them.

When you evaluate a text message archiving solution, look for:

• Complete capture across SMS and MMS,
• Full metadata preservation,
• Tamper-proof storage, and
• Fast search and export.

Those are the capabilities that let you answer FOIA requests, ediscovery demands, and internal investigations from a defensible record rather than a folder of screenshots.

Summary of the Main Points

Here’s a recap of the main points:

• Text messages can be used as evidence in court. To be admissible, they need to meet three criteria: authenticity, relevance, and integrity.
• To prove authenticity, you need to prove that the parties in question did send actual messages.
• Every state has its own views on how text messages should be treated in open requests and ediscovery. Archiving and knowing every law in detail is crucial for full compliance.
• In some cases, text messages can be legally binding on both personal and company-provided phones, making compliance harder to maintain.
• Screenshots of text messages can be relevant evidence, but their admissibility and reliability may be challenged.
• Original digital records, which can be extracted and preserved using special ediscovery tools, are generally preferred because they are more reliable and can be authenticated through technical means.

FAQ

Are text messages legally binding?

Yes, for government agencies, text messages can be legally binding. Agencies should treat texts as official records and archive them to ensure compliance and legal readiness.

How far back can you subpoena text messages?

Subpoenas can seek messages as far back as they exist, but the availability depends on two things: carrier retention policies and legal relevance. Carriers often only store message content for a few days to months, though metadata may be kept longer. For government records, laws may require longer retention.

Can you request text message records?

For personal texts, you can request your own records from your carrier, but they often only provide metadata (date, time, number) for a short period, not the message content. For government texts, you can request them as public records under state and federal laws if they relate to official business.

Can you file a FOIA request for text messages?

Yes, you can file a FOIA request for text messages. Under federal and state public records laws, text messages are considered public records if they are sent or received by a government official in the course of public business, regardless of the device used. Your request must be specific enough to allow the agency to locate the records.

How long do government agencies need to retain text messages?

Retention periods vary by state and by the classification of the record. Some schedules use common periods such as three, five or seven years, while others depend on whether the text relates to policy, personnel, investigations or routine administration.

What happens if a government agency fails to produce text messages in a FOIA request?

An agency may face court orders, sanctions or other litigation consequences if responsive text messages were not preserved or cannot be produced. Even when monetary penalties are not automatic, the agency can still face reputational damage, adverse inferences and increased scrutiny of its records management practices.

About the Author

Bojana Krstic

Bojana Krstic is the Marketing Director at Jatheon. In her previous roles, she spent 8+ years writing B2B content on data archiving, ediscovery, and compliance. When AFK, you’ll find her hiking, discovering new music, or road-tripping.