FCC rules that consumers can opt out of robocalls using any reasonable method

Telemarketers and other scammey businesses love making it difficult to get out from under their thumb, and on February 16, 2024, the FCC issued Docket No. 02-278 reiterating that consumers can opt out of calls/robocalls using any reasonable means. Fortunately this has been the general rule in the nine circuit for some time, so this just adds authority to a consumer friendly rule. Epps v. Earth Fare Inc., No. 16-8221, 2017 WL 1424637 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) had a great summary of the rule:

“The FCC rules "require[ ] callers give consumers a direct opt-out mechanism such as . . . a reply of 'STOP' for text messages. The common thread linking these cases is that consumers must be able to respond to an unwanted call . . . using either a reasonable oral method or a reasonable method in writing . . . to prevent future calls."

"When assessing whether any particular means of revocation used by a consumer was reasonable," the FCC ruled that the relevant inquiry is:

the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding that specific situation, including, for example, whether the consumer had a reasonable expectation that he or she could effectively communicate his or her request for revocation to the caller in that circumstance, and whether the caller could have implemented mechanisms to effectuate a requested revocation without incurring undue burdens.”

Epps was affirmed on appeal. Epps v. Earth Fare, Inc., No. 17-55413, 2-3 (9th Cir. Oct. 26, 2018). Some other great cases are Rando v. Edible Arrangements Int'l, LLC, Civil Action No. 17-701(JBS/AMD), 20 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2018)

The Court finds that, in the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person seeking to revoke consent would have tried, at least at some point during the back-and-forth, simply replying "STOP" to cancel--as instructed, rather than ignoring Defendant's revocation method

and Viggiano v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc., Civ. Action No. 17-0243-BRM-TJB, 8 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2017) “The FCC's ruling are clear—a caller may not designate a method of opting out "in ways that make it difficult or impossible to effectuate revocations". The FCC had visited the subject previously in 2015's In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 F.C.C. Rcd. 7961 (“a called party may revoke consent at any time and through any reasonable means. A caller may not limit the manner in which revocation may occur” ¶47 and “callers may not abridge a consumer’s right to revoke consent using any reasonable method” ¶64).  

The ninth circuit adopted this view in Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., LLC, 847 F.3d 1037, 1047-48 (9th Cir. 2017):

The 2015 Order stressed that consumers "have a right to revoke consent, using any reasonable method including orally or in writing." Id. at 7996 ¶ 64. The FCC also specified ways that a consumer may revoke a call: "by way of a consumer-initiated call, directly in response to a call initiated or made by a caller, or at an in-store bill payment location, among other possibilities." Id. The FCC emphasized that the TCPA does not permit the calling party to designate the exclusive means of revocation, and instead, the called party must "clearly express his or her desire not to receive further calls." Id. at 7997 ¶ 67. It is reasonable for the FCC to interpret the TCPA to permit revocation of consent.

All this to say ¶5 of the 2024 ruling joins an existing body of law.

Revocation of Consent. In 2015, the Commission clarified that consumers who have provided prior express consent to receive autodialed or prerecorded calls may revoke such consent through any reasonable means.10 Citing prior Commission rulings and the “well-established common law right to revoke prior consent,” the Commission concluded that the most reasonable interpretation of “prior express consent” in light of the TCPA’s consumer protection goals is “to permit a right of revocation.” In so doing, the Commission indicated that “to allow callers to designate the exclusive means of revocation would, at least in some circumstances, materially impair that right.”12 As a result, the Commission concluded that a consumer “may revoke his or her consent in any reasonable manner that clearly expresses his or her desire not to receive further calls, and that the consumer is not limited to using only a revocation method that the caller has established as one that it will accept.”

FCC-24-24A1 any reasonable method.pdf

Download PDF • 240KB

Would you like a free case review? Do you have a question or a telemarketing, debt collection, or bankruptcy case that would make a great blog article? We might even review your pro-se complaint or motion in a blog post. Email peter@nwdebtresolution.com and/or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com and we may answer it for everyone!

Are telemarketers harassing you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana? My Washington State TCPA plaintiff law practice can help, just give us a call 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 just that, his thoughts, opinions and musings and should be treated as such. They are not legal advice. If you are looking to file a lawsuit for TCPA violations and unwanted calls please contact me for a consultation.

Return to blog articles