Significant Updates to Telephone Consumer Protection Act to Take Effect Next April

Those rule changes were recently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), now making the effective date of the new rules April 11, 2025. Below is a summary of three key changes that will be taking effect then.

1. Revoking Consent in Any Reasonable Way

The order codifies the FCC’s longstanding position that a called party may revoke consent ​“by using any reasonable method.” To provide further clarification on what constitutes a ​“reasonable” means of revoking consent, the FCC adopted the following specific requirements that will be considered per se reasonable opt-outs:

• Any revocation request made using an automated, interactive voice or key press-activated opt-out mechanism provided during a call itself.
• A website or telephone number designated by the caller to process opt-out requests.
• A reply to an incoming text message that uses words ​“stop,” “quit,” “end,” ​“revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe” will also be considered per se reasonable to revoke consent (note: texters should ensure their platform operator automatically recognizes these commands).

However, the FCC also ruled that this does not preclude the use of other words and phrases to revoke consent, and the caller/texter “will have an opportunity to explain why the consumer’s use of alternative words or phrases does not constitute a reasonable means to revoke consent.” Ironically, the FCC prefaced this order by repeatedly stating its rule changes would “make clearer to callers and consumers” how consent could be revoked and that its order would “remove uncertainty.” So do businesses have to honor “what the sigma” as valid opt-out requests?

Ultimately, the “standard” will be that a caller must treat a reply text as a valid revocation request if a reasonable person would understand those words to have conveyed a request to revoke consent, and the FCC will use a “totality-of-circumstances analysis.” That is, if a consumer attempts to revoke consent using a method or language other than what is prescribed in the rules, or in the event of a dispute, the order establishes a standard of review based on the ​“totality of circumstances.” However, there is a ​“rebuttable presumption” that the consumer has properly revoked consent if the consumer can ​“produce evidence that such a request has been made.”

That said, a texter can choose to use a texting protocol that does not allow reply texts, but it must “provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure on each text to the consumer that two-way texting is not available due to technical limitations of the texting protocol, and clearly and conspicuously provide on each text reasonable alternative ways to revoke consent.” There goes your 160 characters…

Finally, businesses will not be permitted to ​“designate any exclusive means to request revocation of consent” and will be required to honor revocations made in a reasonable manner within 10 business days of receipt of the request.

2. Confirmatory Opt-Out Texts

The order also codifies a previous FCC declaratory ruling that a ​“one-time text message confirming a request to revoke consent from receiving any further calls or text messages does not violate the TCPA or the Commission rules as long as the confirmation text merely confirms the text recipient’s revocation request and does not include any marketing or promotional information, and is the only additional message sent to the called party after receipt of the revocation request.” The order also requires the confirmatory text to be sent within five minutes of receipt of the opt-out request, or ​“the sender will have to make a showing that such delay was reasonable.”

Additionally, the new rule provides that “[t]o the extent that the text recipient has consented to several categories of text messages from the text sender, the confirmation message may request clarification as to whether the revocation request was meant to encompass all such messages.” The sender must cease all further texts for which consent is required, absent further clarification that the recipient wishes to continue to receive certain text messages. A ​“lack of any response to the confirmation text must be treated by the sender as a revocation of consent for all robocalls and robotexts from the sender.” Finally, the order makes clear that an opt-out message cannot attempt to persuade the recipient to reconsider their decision to opt out.

3. Scope of Revocation of Consent

The order acknowledges that certain types of calls and texts do not require consent and clarifies that ​“when a consumer revokes consent with regard to telemarketing robocalls or robotexts, the caller can continue to reach the consumer pursuant to an exempted informational call, which does not require consent, unless and until the consumer separately expresses an intent to opt out of these exempted calls.”

It explains that “[w]here the consumer has revoked consent in response to a telemarketing call or message, it remains unclear whether the consumer has expressed an intent to opt out of otherwise exempted informational calls absent some indication to the contrary. … If the revocation request is made directly in response to an exempted informational call or text, however, this constitutes an opt-out request from the consumer and all further non-emergency robocalls and robotexts must stop.”

Additionally, ​“when consent is revoked in any reasonable manner, that revocation extends to both robocalls and robotexts regardless of the medium used to communicate the revocation of consent. For example, if the consumer revokes consent using a reply text message, then consent is deemed revoked not only to further robotexts but also robocalls from that caller.” Thus, if a caller is sending “robotexts” — defined as autodialed texts under that (largely neutered) definition — then it needs to track opt-outs if it also sending robocalls, and vice versa.

This would seem to suggest that if the texter is not sending robotexts, then it need not worry about tracking opt-out requests against other calling or texting channels. However, in a separate part of the order, the FCC stated that “we take this opportunity to clarify and amend our rules to make clear that consumers who have given their ‘prior express invitation or permission’ to individual sellers to call their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call registry have the right to revoke consent by any reasonable means. We agree that the Commission’s precedent confirming the right of consumers to revoke consent to robocalls applies equally to this situation.” Thus, callers likely shouldn’t get too aggressive interpreting this rule change as only applying to robocalls and robotexts but should be mindful that a STOP request to a telemarketing call — regardless of how “robo” it is — could be considered an opt-out for any telemarketing call.

If you have questions on how these rule changes will impact you, please contact Adam Bowser.