On October 7, 2025, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a draft Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that is intended to streamline or eliminate certain regulatory requirements under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and pertaining to the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry. The proposed changes and amendments could significantly reduce certain compliance burdens on companies that call and text consumers.
In the FNPRM, the FCC identified older rules to be revised or rescinded, as well as proposed or new rules that should be retracted. Companies that may be impacted by the proposed changes will have an opportunity to submit comments to the FCC after it publishes the FNPRM.
Amendments to Long-standing FCC Rules
In the FNPRM, the FCC identified “Older Rules That Might No Longer be Necessary”:
1. Call Abandonment
Currently, telemarketing calls cannot be “abandoned” before 15 seconds or at least four rings. The FCC proposes to eliminate this rule. Moreover, answered calls made with a predictive dialer must have a live agent available to speak with the call recipient on at least 97% of calls. The FCC proposes to eliminate that cap.
In the FNPRM, the FCC explained that the rules impose a significant burden on companies, which are not offset by a consumer benefit. The FCC suggested that because predictive dialers have become more efficient, the calling practices these rules target might no longer be a significant source of consumer frustration. The proposed rule change would relieve telemarketing companies of the burden of tracking their calls to comply with the rules or responding to FCC inquiries on this issue.
2. Company-Specific DNC Requirements
Under the current rules, companies that place telemarketing calls must maintain internal, company-specific DNC lists and must scrub those lists against the National DNC Registry every 31 days. The FCC is considering eliminating or streamlining the company-specific requirement because, according to the FNPRM, the National DNC Registry and consent revocation obligations under the TCPA provide sufficient protection and relief for consumers.
This proposed amendment would appear to lessen the administrative burden on companies, but it would not eliminate the requirement that companies track and honor individual consent revocations. (Indeed, tracking revocations of consent is akin to maintaining an internal DNC list.)
3. Artificial and Prerecorded Voice Caller Identification
Current rules require a telemarketer making artificial or prerecorded voice calls to include a telephone number in the call or voicemail other than a 900 number or any other number for which charges “exceed local or long-distance” transmission charges.
The FCC proposes to modernize this rule to require only that telemarketers identify themselves with their telephone number to enable consumers to know who is calling. The FCC believes this change will better reflect the current telecommunications landscape because “local and long-distance” charges are no longer common.
This proposed amendment likely will not result in significant changes to telemarketers’ business practices given that the FTC already requires telemarketers to promptly identify themselves and use telephone numbers capable of being called back.
Amendments to Pending and New Rules
The FCC has identified the following as “More Recent Rules That Might Harm Consumers”:
1. Consent Revocation
The current rule on consent revocation, set to take effect April 11, 2026, requires that if a consumer opts out of informational calls or texts, that revocation applies to all communications from that caller. And if a customer revokes consent for a marketing call, that revocation applies to all other marketing text messages. The current FCC, under the leadership of Chair Brendan Carr, now believes that this rule may unduly restrict consumers’ ability to receive wanted calls. The FCC expressed concern for consumers who interact with the caller in multiple ways (e.g., as both an employee and a customer) or receive services from separate locations.
The FCC also proposes revising § 64.1200(a)(10), which, as written, requires callers to honor revocations made through any “reasonable means.” The FCC seeks comment on whether to permit businesses to designate the exclusive means by which consumers may revoke prior express consent rather than requiring businesses to honor all revocation requests made using “reasonable means,” an approach the FCC described as “potential[ly] ambigu[ous].”
These proposed changes are likely to have the greatest impact on telemarketers. The pending “all or nothing” consent revocation requirements have already been creating logistical headaches for companies as they attempt to create compliance programs. Under the FCC’s proposed amendments, consumers would have the ability to revoke consent by category or type of service.
Furthermore, the vague rules around what “reasonable means” are in practice have put additional burdens on companies, and the proposed approach could significantly reduce such ambiguity and potential litigation risk.
2. Fraud Alert Calls
Finally, the FCC proposes to eliminate a rule that prohibits financial institutions, when making fraud alert calls under a TCPA exception, from contacting any other phone number than the specific number a consumer provided for that purpose. The FCC believes this rule might unduly restrict critical calls about consumers’ financial accounts.
Timing
A 60-day public comment period will follow the final FNPRM’s publication in the Federal Register. The comment date will be 30 days after the date of publication, and the reply comment date will be 60 days after the date of publication.
Takeaways
The TCPA litigation landscape is undergoing major changes. Any final rules that follow from the FNPRM could substantially impact TCPA requirements for companies and potentially reduce certain kinds of litigation. Companies may use the comment period to voice concerns about (or support for) the proposed rules.
Companies should also bear in mind the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., which held that the federal Hobbs Act does not bind district courts, in civil enforcement proceedings, to a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute. Instead, courts must independently determine whether the FCC’s actions are consistent with the TCPA. Companies therefore cannot exclusively rely on FCC orders to provide guidance and precedent, since federal courts are not bound by the agency’s interpretations or required to defer to them. Thus, while the FCC may propose to amend and streamline certain rules, companies should still expect to see a wave of TCPA litigation in the coming months and years as plaintiffs challenge long-standing FCC rules.
[View source.]
