TRACED Act Penalties: FCC Forfeiture Exposure Beyond a Lawsuit

Since the TRACED Act, the FCC can propose a forfeiture against a business for autodialed or prerecorded calls that violate the TCPA without first sending a warning citation, even if the business holds no FCC license. Under the statute, a violation committed “with the intent to cause such violation” carries an additional penalty on top of the ordinary forfeiture, and the FCC has a longer window to pursue intentional violations. It adds a second front to private suits, and a business that receives a Notice of Apparent Liability has procedural rights worth using.

What did the TRACED Act change about FCC penalties?

Two things matter most to businesses that call or text.

First, it removed the warning step for robocall violations. The general forfeiture statute says the FCC can’t fine someone who “does not hold a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization issued by the Commission” unless that person first receives a citation and later repeats the conduct, under 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5). The TCPA’s forfeiture provision now says, for violations of the autodialer and prerecorded-call rules, “Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) of this title shall not apply in the case of a violation of this subsection,” under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(4)(A). An ordinary business that has never dealt with the FCC can face a proposed fine on the first contact.

Second, it added a penalty for intent. A person found to have violated § 227(b) “with the intent to cause such violation” is liable for the ordinary forfeiture “plus an additional penalty not to exceed $10,000,” under § 227(b)(4)(B). The FCC adjusts that figure for inflation, and the eCFR on this date lists the additional penalty as “not to exceed $12,266” in 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(5).

The statute also sets separate time limits for the ordinary and the intentional forfeiture, and the window for intentional violations is longer. Old campaigns can still draw FCC attention.

How large can an FCC forfeiture get?

Large, because the FCC counts violations call by call.

For a business that isn’t a broadcaster or common carrier, the statutory maximum comes from 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D), adjusted annually for inflation. The eCFR’s inflation table in § 1.80(b)(12), as it reads on this date, lists the § 503(b)(2)(D) maximum after the 2025 adjustment as $25,132 per violation, and § 1.80(b)(10) caps a continuing violation at a total of $188,491 for any single act or failure to act. In deciding an amount, the FCC weighs the factors listed in the statute, including, for the violator, “the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require,” under § 503(b)(2)(E).

Multiply a per-call figure by a campaign’s volume and the totals become enormous. That multiplication is how a proposed forfeiture can grow very large. In my view, that arithmetic is also why the FCC’s enforcement attention lands on high-volume campaigns, and why a business running one should treat compliance documentation as a cost of doing business, not an afterthought.

Is a Notice of Apparent Liability a fine?

No. It’s a proposal, and the business gets to respond.

Under § 503(b)(4), no forfeiture is imposed unless “the Commission issues a notice of apparent liability, in writing,” the notice is received or mailed, and the person “is granted an opportunity to show, in writing, within such reasonable period of time as the Commission prescribes by rule or regulation, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.” The TCPA provision repeats the point: “No forfeiture liability shall be determined under subparagraph (A) or (B) against any person unless such person receives the notice required by section 503(b)(3) of this title or section 503(b)(4) of this title,” under § 227(b)(4)(D).

A Notice of Apparent Liability is a proposed fine. The FCC has not made a final determination at that stage. The response is the business’s first real chance to contest the facts, the call counts, the consent records, and the intent finding, and I’d treat it as seriously as an answer to a complaint.

A strong response usually does three jobs. It tests the FCC’s count, because a proposed forfeiture built on an estimated number of calls can shrink when the records show fewer. It puts the consent and scrub records in front of the agency, which bears on both liability and intent, and it explains any vendor’s role in the calls. And it addresses the factors in § 503(b)(2)(E), which include “ability to pay,” with financial records when that factor is real. None of that is possible if the call detail records were deleted under a routine retention schedule, which is why preservation comes first.

What happens if the business doesn’t pay?

If the FCC proceeds by Notice of Apparent Liability, the government has to sue, and the business gets a trial.

A forfeiture is “recoverable under section 504(a) of this title,” under § 227(b)(4)(C). Section 504(a) provides that forfeitures are recoverable “in a civil suit in the name of the United States,” and adds: “any suit for the recovery of a forfeiture imposed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be a trial de novo,” under 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).

That trial matters more now. In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025), the Supreme Court answered no to the question whether, “In civil enforcement proceedings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,” district courts are bound by the FCC’s interpretation, and said the trial court “should interpret the TCPA under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation.” A business defending a forfeiture suit can argue the meaning of the statute itself, not only the FCC’s reading of it.

The forfeiture process itself is now under review. On January 9, 2026, the Supreme Court granted review in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc., No. 25-406, and consolidated it with No. 25-567; the docket entry reads “Petition GRANTED.” The cases challenge how the FCC imposes forfeitures, including whether the process satisfies the right to a jury trial. Until the Court rules, I’d preserve that argument in any response to a Notice of Apparent Liability. Our post on McLaughlin and FCC deference covers that decision.

How does FCC exposure interact with private lawsuits?

They run in parallel, and one can feed the other.

The forfeiture provision says a forfeiture penalty “shall be in addition to any other penalty provided for by this chapter,” under § 227(b)(4)(A). Private plaintiffs can sue under § 227(b)(3) for the same calls. And public FCC findings can turn up in a later private complaint as allegations. A business answering an FCC inquiry should assume that what it says may be read by plaintiffs’ lawyers later. Our post on robocall traceback requests and state attorney general suits covers the investigation side.

FCC and private exposure side by side

First steps when an FCC letter or Notice of Apparent Liability arrives

The firm’s TCPA litigation defense page covers how private TCPA claims develop, from a demand letter to a class action. Then:

1. Put a litigation hold on call detail records, dialer logs, platform data, and consent records for every campaign the FCC mentions.
2. Export opt-out and internal do-not-call records with dates, and document how requests were processed.
3. Pull National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and Registry versions for the period the FCC named.
4. Collect vendor and lead-source contracts, carrier agreements, and every script and recorded or AI-voice message used.
5. Talk to a lawyer before responding to the FCC, contacting anyone who complained, or discussing payment.

Questions businesses ask about FCC robocall penalties

Can the FCC fine a company that never held an FCC license?

Yes, for violations of § 227(b). The TCPA’s forfeiture provision says the citation requirement of § 503(b)(5), which otherwise protects non-licensees with a first-time warning, doesn’t apply to those violations.

Does an FCC forfeiture prevent consumers from suing?

No. The forfeiture is an added penalty under the statute, and private suits under § 227(b)(3) are separate. A business can face both over the same campaign.

How does the FCC show intent for the additional penalty?

The statute reaches a violation committed “with the intent to cause such violation.” It doesn’t define the phrase further. Consent records, scrub logs, and evidence of good-faith compliance efforts are the natural answer to an intent finding.

When the FCC comes calling

If your company has received an FCC inquiry or Notice of Apparent Liability over calls or texts, the response is the first and best chance to shape the record that a later court, or a later private plaintiff, will read. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including matters involving robocall enforcement. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

The statutes are 47 U.S.C. § 227, § 503, and § 504, as amended by the TRACED Act, Pub. L. No. 116-105 (2019). The FCC’s forfeiture rule is 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, in the eCFR version as of January 28, 2026.

The court decision is McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025).

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of January 28, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Courts and the FCC change the rules in this area often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.