That's only vaguely true. The FCC has effectively said "here's a list of words that are considered reasonable opt out words and let the courts decide what is reasonable when there is a dispute." [0] They're basically deferring to the courts to determine reasonableness.
Obviously it's a good practice to remove people who are intentionally obtuse, but the courts really don't like people who don't follow the instructions, especially because sending "please don't send me messages" is more inconvenient than sending "STOP":
> The court held that “[t]he totality of the plausibly alleged facts, even when viewed in Plaintiff’s favor, militate against finding that Plaintiff’s revocation method was reasonable.” It also rejected the notion that there is something improper about prompting called parties to text “STOP,” explaining that “heeding Defendant’s opt-out instruction would not have plausibly been more burdensome on Plaintiff than sending verbose requests to terminate the messages.”
[1]
That said, it's reasonable to expect that replying "stop" regardless of case should stop those messages from coming through.
[0]: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-24A1.pdf
[1]: https://tcpablog.com/2017/revocation-consent-must-reasonable...
If you contact me without my consent I now have to follow your instructions to stop your harassment?
Nonsense.
How do they know I consented vs the person who had the number prior to me? I recieve texts I didn't sign up for all the time for companies I've never heard of for people with names and addresses that are different than mine.
I really feel the burden of consent should be on the sender vs the receiver.
Think of it this way, the receiver must carefully read what they have received in order to correctly opt out but the sender can just run a regex for "STOP" and call it a day. The more difficult burden should be on the sender. They should have to validate every message received to see if it is requesting to opt out. Put another way, the consent is retracted even if your regex didn't detect it.
When it comes to sex consent doesn't work that way; "She didn't say the safeword I texted her a year ago your honor so I had consent!"
Yikes. The lawyer dog comes to mind (a Fifth and Sixth Amendment Supreme Court case). Suspect speaks voluntarily to police until he realizes they suspect him of a crime. He stops and says, "I want a lawyer, dawg." What is meant to happen then is that the interrogation is stopped until that point. Police carried on the interrogation, and the Court ruled that statements he made in that period of time were admissible in securing a conviction against him.
When this was appealed, the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to hear it, saying, with a completely straight face, that there was ambiguity, and that since the police could reasonably believe that he was in fact asking for a canine lawyer, i.e. Lawyer McDog, Esquire, and that they couldn't find such an attorney, there was no invocation of counsel that warranted a termination of the interview.
Something something greatest legal minds of their generation.