If you don't revoke consent, your opponent can argue, often with great success, that you failed to mitigate.
I would send them a return text message next time they text. It would read: Don't send me texts.
I would not use the word STOP in the return message.
A principle of equity cannot be used to avoid an obligation imposed by a statutory mandate.
A Plaintiff in a TCPA action has absolutely no duty to mitigate damages in any regard.
See- Holtzman v. Turza, No. 08 C 2014, 2010 WL 3076258, at *5 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 29, 2010); Fillichio v. M.R.S Associates, Inc., No. 09-612629-CIV, 2010 WL 4261442, at *5 (S.D.Fla. Oct. 19, 2010); State ex rel. Charvat v. Frye, 114 Ohio St.3d 76, 868 N.E.2d 270, 275 (2007); Manuf. Auto Leasing, Inc. v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc., 139 S.W.3d 342, 347 (Tex.Ct.App.2004); Onsite Computer Consulting Svs., Inc. v. Dartek Computer Supply Corp., No. 05AC-000108 I CV, 2006 WL 2771640, at *4 (Mo.Cir. May 17, 2006); Jemiola v. XYZ Corp., 126 Ohio Misc.2d 68, 802 N.E.2d 745, 750 (2003); Powell v. West Asset Management, Inc. (Dist. Court, NC Illinois 2011)
In State ex rel. Charvat v Frye, the court held-
“Finally, notwithstanding Judge Frye’s argument to the contrary, his reliance on the common-law principle of volenti non fit injuria (a person is not wronged by that to which he consents) and that an injured party must mitigate his damages is misplaced. There is no duty to mitigate in TCPA cases. See, e.g.,Manufacturers Auto Leasing, Inc. v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc.(Tex.App.2004), 139 S.W.3d 342, 347-348 (defendant in TCPA case did not have duty to mitigate its damages by using statutory method to request defendant to stop transmitting unsolicited facsimile ads instead of simply collecting the ads and suing).”
See- State Farm v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 1102), “principles of equity cannot be used to avoid a statutory mandate.”; Ghory v. Al-Laham (1989) 209 Cal. App. 3d 1487, 1492 (The defense was stricken from the pleadings); Jiagbogu v. Mercedes-Benz USA, 118 Cal. App. 4th 1235, 1244 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2004), “principles of equity [cannot] be used to avoid a statutory mandate.”
Every single court that I know of, that has ever been confronted with the issue of "failure to mitigate" [a principle of equity] in regards to it being offered as a defense against a statutory obligation, has rejected the idea that a principle of equity can be used to avoid a statutory mandate. The courts have not rejected failure to mitigate have been overturned on appeal.