FCC

Subscribe to FCC via RSS

Last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Telephone Customer Protection Act (TCPA) permits businesses to obtain only prior express consent rather than prior express written consent for autodialed and prerecorded calls and texts. This holding expressly rejects the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) interpretation of the TCPA’s consent requirement first promulgated in 2012.

In Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant, refusing to apply a stricter consent standard to telemarketing texts than to non-telemarketing or informational messages. In the case, the court rejected the FCC’s long-standing regulation that interpreted the TCPA to require prior express written consent for telemarketing messages, holding that because the TCPA’s statutory text does not distinguish between telemarketing and non-telemarketing/informational messages, courts should not apply a stricter consent standard for telemarketing messages.Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Limits TCPA Prior Express Written Consent Requirements

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has further extended the effective date of the Revoke All consent rule from April 11, 2026 to January 31, 2027. That rule requires businesses to treat a consumer’s consent revocation request made in response to one type of text message or call as applicable to all future calls and texts from that caller on all other matters. The FCC first extended the effective date last April.

The FCC’s new extension is intended to allow more time for the FCC to take comments and consider adjustments to the rule. In particular, the FCC recently initiated a rulemaking proceeding to seek comment on ways the agency can modify the requirement that a caller must treat an opt-out request made in response to one type of call or text to be an opt-out request for all types of calls and texts. Reply comments in that proceeding are due on February 3, 2026; please let us know if you would like to prepare and file comments.Continue Reading FCC Delays Revoke All Consent Rule for Robocalls and Text Messages Until 2027

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) continues to be hotly litigated by class action plaintiffs’ attorneys, with filed cases increasing significantly over the last year. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. that federal district courts have the power to ignore the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) interpretations of the TCPA and to independently decide what the TCPA requires. The decision (which should not come as much of a surprise after the Loper Bright holding) concluded that the federal Hobbs Act does not demand that district courts absolutely defer to the FCC’s interpretations of the TCPA in enforcement proceedings, stating:

In an enforcement proceeding, a district court must independently determine for itself whether the agency’s interpretation of a statute is correct. District courts are not bound by the agency’s interpretation, but instead must determine the meaning of the law under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation. Continue Reading The Future of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the Wake of Supreme Court’s Decision in McLaughin Chiropractic v. McKesson

At its May open meeting, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implemented three distinct regulatory measures aimed at protecting domestic communications networks and equipment from threats posed by hostile foreign nations and identifying security vulnerabilities in the communications supply chain. The actions impact telecommunications carriers, service providers, and equipment manufacturers, as well as stakeholders in related industries.

In concert, these oversight and transparency actions are designed to reduce the influence of foreign adversaries on the telecommunications industry’s critical infrastructure and supply chain and mitigate vulnerabilities that enable cyberattacks, espionage, and surveillance by foreign adversaries.Continue Reading FCC Adopts Several National Security Measures

Join us as we spotlight select chapters of Venable’s popular Advertising Law Tool Kit, which helps marketing teams navigate their organization’s legal risk. Click here to download the entire Tool Kit.

Telephone and text message marketing is subject to complex litigation risks and regulatory challenges, requiring careful compliance. Federal laws like the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and state-specific laws regulate marketing calls and texts, focusing on the use of autodialers, prerecorded messages, and consent requirements.Continue Reading Telemarketing and Texting

The Fifth Circuit on April 17 vacated a $57 million FCC forfeiture against AT&T, ruling the agency violated the company’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial under the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. This decision reinforces that federal agencies imposing fines, forfeitures, and other monetary penalties must afford targets access to an Article III decision maker and a jury trial in order to perfect the penalty.Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Decision Vacating FCC Fine Against AT&T Makes It More Difficult for Federal Agencies to Impose Monetary Penalties for Violations of Agency Rules

On April 7, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) granted a limited waiver delaying by an additional year the effective date of certain parts of the new Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) rule. Specifically, the waiver delays the effective date for the requirement that a caller treat a single reasonable revocation as revocation from all future robocalls from that party on unrelated matters, and to accept that single revocation as applying to all its business units and entities, which the agency treats as the same “party.”

The FCC’s announcement indicated that it applies only to the scope of revocation issues. The bad news for businesses sending texts and making calls? Businesses must still prepare to comply with the rest of the robocall/robotext consent requirements by April 11, 2025. The good news is that companies now have an additional year to implement systems that communicate revocations across different business units within the same company.Continue Reading FCC Approves Narrow Delay of New TCPA Revocation Rule

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (consolidated with SHLB Coalition v. Consumers’ Research), a case about the role of executive administrative agencies and congressional delegations of power to those agencies that could revitalize the long-dormant nondelegation doctrine.

This case has broad implications for administrative law generally, but for agencies that are empowered to assess fees or that delegate to private entities in particular. Notably, similar arguments about the doctrine were used to challenge some of the FTC’s more aggressive efforts under Lina Khan, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) . An affirmance would invite more aggressive challenges to all sorts of agency actions where arguably Congress’s delegation is unclear or goes too far.Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Nondelegation Case Implicating the Powers of Administrative Agencies

In January the Eleventh Circuit vacated the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) one-to-one consent rule, finding that the agency exceeded its statutory authority under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The latest development is that on February 19, 2025, the National Consumers League and some small business owners filed a motion to intervene in the case…

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under new chair Brendan Carr has issued an enforcement advisory addressing complaints that radio stations are coercing musical artists to perform for free at station events by threatening to reduce their airplay if they refuse.

The advisory warns that arrangements requiring performers to play at broadcast station events in exchange for airplay, particularly when coupled with threats of reduced airplay for non-compliance, could violate the FCC’s payola rules. These rules prohibit broadcasters from making programming decisions based on receiving anything of value without on-air disclosure of such consideration. A band’s coerced free performance could constitute such consideration and, if not disclosed during subsequent airplay, would violate payola policies.

The FCC characterized these practices as “covert manipulation of radio airplay,” noting that “[w]hen payola causes stations to broadcast programming based on their financial interests at the expense of community responsiveness, the practice is inconsistent with localism.” While commercial stations can negotiate increased airplay in exchange for event appearances, any agreement for free performances must be disclosed to listeners each time the artist’s songs are played.Continue Reading FCC Enforcement Advisory Issued Regarding Payola and the Sponsorship Identification Requirements