Understanding the FCC's New Rules on Revocation of Consent in Telemarketing
- Peter Schneider
- May 29
- 4 min read
Updated: Jun 9
As our friend Mr. Troutman observes, the FCC's "new" rules regarding revocation have recently come into effect. The FCC had previously stated that consumers can revoke consent using any reasonable means. You can refer to the detailed rulings in the FCC's 2015 TCPA Declaratory Ruling. Much of the "new" regulations provide clarity and context around this existing rule.
Why the FCC Issued More Rules
Why would the FCC choose to elaborate on an existing rule? The answer lies in the actions of the telemarketer companies. These companies often exploit any ambiguity in the rules. Phrases like "any reasonable method" can lead to loopholes. Many judicial decisions found these ambiguities favorable to callers. Thus, the FCC took steps to clarify consent protections.
"Here we take steps both to establish new consent protections and to make explicit those protections the Commission failed to codify in the past. More specifically, we strengthen consumers’ ability to revoke consent so that it is simple and easy, codify previously adopted protections that make it simpler for consumers to revoke consent, and require that callers and texters implement requests in a timely manner."
Let's take a closer look at the FCC's order.
Summary of the FCC's Order
The document begins with a summary of what the order is intended to accomplish:
Clarification of Revocation: It codifies the Commission’s 2015 ruling stating that consumers can revoke consent through any reasonable means. This includes providing additional clarity regarding what “reasonable” means.
Timely Implementation: The FCC now requires robocallers and robotexters to honor do-not-call and consent revocation requests within a timely manner. The maximum timeframe is set at 10 business days from receipt.
Confirmation Texts: The order also codifies the Commission’s 2012 ruling. A one-time text message confirming a consumer’s request to stop all further messages does not violate the TCPA. This is valid as long as the text confirms the opt-out request without including any marketing information.
Key Clarifications on Consumer Rights
In paragraph five, the FCC reminds us that back in 2015, rules were made clear:
Consumers who have provided prior express consent to receive autodialed or prerecorded calls may revoke such consent through any reasonable means.
The Commission indicated that allowing callers to designate exclusive means of revocation could materially impair that right to revoke consent. Therefore, a consumer may revoke consent in any manner that clearly expresses their desire to stop receiving further calls or texts.
Examples of Reasonable Revocation Methods
Specifically, new rules identify acceptable ways for consumers to revoke consent. These include:
Using automated, interactive voice systems.
Sending a text response of “stop” or similar phrases.
Submitting a request through a designated website or telephone number provided by the caller.
If customers use any of the above methods, their consent is considered definitively revoked. Future calls and texts must cease immediately.
Another important aspect clarified is the reasonable use of words like “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” and “unsubscribe.” The FCC confirmed that the use of any of these phrases through text message constitutes a viable way to revoke consent.
Importance of Proper Communication
Although the FCC clarified that there is no mandate for texting parties to provide specific means to revoke consent, it recommended that generic options, like reply texts, should be available.
If a caller provides no way for a consumer to opt-out, they must still inform consumers through two key requirements:
Clear indications that two-way texting is unavailable due to technical limitations.
Alternative ways for consumers to revoke consent, such as providing a phone number or website link.
This ensures that consumers have reasonable options to stop unwanted communications.
Challenges Faced by Consumers and Callers
The FCC has emphasized that restricting revocation requests to only specific methods designated by callers poses a significant obstacle for consumers. This restriction is inconsistent with the consumer protections provided under the TCPA.
The new clarifications ensure consumers can easily withdraw consent while offering callers a fair chance to process these requests. This makes it more difficult for callers to dispute revocation requests made through different methods.
Revocation Requests Across Different Channels
The new rules also extend the concept of consent revocation to encompass all communication channels. If a consumer chooses to revoke consent via a text message, that revocation applies to both robocalls and robotexts alike. Therefore, any following communications must cease unless instructed otherwise by the consumer.
Telemarketers and Legal Obstacles
Despite these "expanded" revocation rules, telemarketers often ignore them, facing legal action as a result.
Consider a recent case where a consumer replied, "Cease and desist all communications." This was a clear intention for calls and texts to stop. However, many telemarketers' systems fail to recognize such phrases. Calls and texts continue even when consumers clearly express their wishes. In many instances, this leads to lawsuits such as De La Torre v. American First Finance, LLC.
Lessons from the Lawsuits
The complaints around these cases often reveal systemic issues and hinder consumer rights. In the case of YF FC Operations LLC, the complaint highlighted that an integration meant to record opt-out messages was failing. This shows how technical failures can cause significant problems for consumers, leaving them exposed to unwanted communications.
How to Get Support
If you feel that telemarketers are harassing you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana, you have options. My Washington State TCPA plaintiff law practice can help. Reach out at 206-800-6000 or email peter@nwdebtresolution.com.
The thoughts, opinions, and musings of this blog are those of Peter Schneider, a consumer advocate and Washington State plaintiff's TCPA attorney at Northwest Debt Resolution, LLC. They are not legal advice. If you seek to file a lawsuit for TCPA violations and unwanted calls, please contact me for a consultation.
Comments