Vehicle service contracts and home warranties are commonly sold by phone, and regulators watch the calls closely. In 2023 the FCC imposed a $299,997,000 forfeiture on a robocall enterprise that generated leads for vehicle service contract sellers, finding over five billion auto warranty robocalls placed in about three months. Sellers that buy calls or leads in this space carry real risk from their vendors’ practices. Those with signed consent records, scripts that don’t mislead, and vendor controls they can prove are in the best position.
What did the FCC find in the auto warranty robocall case?
A lead-generation scheme run through dialers, spoofed caller ID, and deceptive scripts.
In its Forfeiture Order, FCC 23-64, adopted August 3, 2023, the FCC wrote: “We impose a penalty of $299,997,000” against ten related entities, “which placed over five billion auto warranty robocalls to consumers between January 2021 and March 2021 in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Truth in Caller ID Act.” Per the order, the enterprise “generated billions of robocalls for the purpose of generating leads for vehicle service contract sellers,” and three of the entities “contracted with vehicle service contract sellers (Clients) to identify potential purchasers for the Clients’ vehicle service contracts.”
The FCC described the scripts bluntly: “The messages were false in almost all respects.” According to the order, the calls claimed to be about the consumer’s “extended warranty,” but the callers “were attempting to sell new vehicle service contracts.” The FCC had issued a Notice of Apparent Liability in December 2022, and when it received no payment or response, it affirmed the proposed forfeiture.
The sellers who bought those leads were described in the order as clients, not as the parties fined.
A forfeiture order isn’t self-executing. In FCC v. AT&T, Inc., No. 25-406 (U.S. June 4, 2026), the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s process against a Seventh Amendment challenge, explaining that “before the Government can collect a penalty, it must prove its case to a jury in a trial de novo.” That’s the lesson for legitimate businesses in this industry: the vendor’s conduct is what generates the exposure, and the seller is the one with customer relationships and a reputation at stake.
Why are warranty sellers exposed to their vendors’ calls?
Because TCPA liability can reach the business on whose behalf calls are made.
The private Do Not Call claim counts calls made “by or on behalf of the same entity,” under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), and the FCC’s rule at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(10) defines a seller as “the person or entity on whose behalf a telephone call or message is initiated for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services” that is transmitted to any person. Plaintiffs also plead vicarious liability under agency principles. Our post on when a seller is liable for a vendor’s TCPA calls covers how courts approach that question.
In my view, warranty sellers should assume a plaintiff will name them, not just the dialer, and should build their defense file before the first lead is purchased.
What consent do prerecorded and autodialed warranty calls need?
Signed written consent for prerecorded calls, and for autodialed calls to cell phones.
The FCC’s rule bars autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing to cell phones “other than a call made with the prior express written consent of the called party,” under § 64.1200(a)(2). That consent must be a signed written agreement that “clearly authorizes the seller” to send those messages, with the telephone number, under § 64.1200(f)(9).
The FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule has its own requirement for prerecorded sales calls. The seller must obtain “an express agreement, in writing,” that “Evidences the willingness of the recipient of the call to receive calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on behalf of a specific seller,” under 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v). Prerecorded telemarketing to residential lines needs the same written consent under § 64.1200(a)(3). A lead form that names a list of unidentified partners is a weak record under both rules.
How should a warranty seller vet a lead or calling vendor?
With documents, not assurances. In my view, a seller should ask every vendor, in writing, how each call or lead is generated, which dialing platform is used, whether any prerecorded or artificial voice is involved, and what caller ID numbers will appear. It should get sample consent records, with the actual form language and the seller’s name on it, before the first purchase, and it should test the vendor by calling a sample of leads to confirm they remember asking. A vendor that won’t answer those questions, or that sells “aged” leads with no form history, is telling the seller what kind of exposure it’s buying. Contracts should give the seller audit rights, require delivery of consent records within days of a request, and let the seller shut off a campaign immediately. Those terms cost little to negotiate at the start and are very hard to get after a complaint arrives.
What about caller ID and scripts?
They matter as much as consent in this industry.
The FCC’s order turned in part on spoofed caller ID and misleading scripts. A warranty seller’s scripts should identify the seller by name, describe the product as what it is, and avoid implying an existing warranty is expiring when the call is a new sale. Prerecorded messages must, at the beginning, “state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity that is responsible for initiating the call,” under § 64.1200(b)(1). A script built on the extended-warranty framing the FCC found false is an invitation to an enforcement action, apart from any private suit.
What changed for revocation this fall?
The FCC adopted new opt-out rules on September 30, 2026.
In FCC 26-67, released October 1, 2026, the FCC revised its revocation rules, and the order says the “revised rule amendments contained herein become effective 30 days after Federal Register publication.” The rules were published on October 26, 2026, at 91 Fed. Reg. 67214, with an effective date of November 25, 2026. Our post on the FCC’s 2026 opt-out order explains what changes. For warranty sellers running high-volume campaigns, the practical point is the same as before: opt-outs must reach every vendor dialing on the seller’s behalf, quickly.
Warranty-calling claims and the defenses that answer them
| Claim theory | Statute or rule | Exposure | Defenses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prerecorded or autodialed warranty calls without written consent | 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), (b)(3); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2) | $500 per call or actual loss, whichever is greater, and up to $1,500 if willful or knowing | Signed consent naming the seller, no artificial or prerecorded voice or autodialer, or no agency relationship with the caller |
| Calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry | 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) | Up to $500 per call or actual loss, whichever is greater, and up to $1,500 if willful or knowing | Written permission naming the seller, reasonable practices, the more-than-one-call threshold, and, for texts in the Seventh Circuit, Steidinger’s holding that texts aren’t covered |
| FCC forfeiture | 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(4), (e); § 503(b) | Per-call forfeitures | A written response to the Notice of Apparent Liability, and, if the government sues to collect, a jury trial de novo under § 504(a) |
The Seventh Circuit held in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), that “Repeated, unwanted text messages are undoubtedly a nuisance. But they do not fall within the private right of action created by § 227(c)(5).” The damages rules are in 47 U.S.C. § 227.
What a warranty seller should gather when a claim arrives
The firm’s TCPA litigation defense page covers how a single demand can become a class action. Then:
- Preserve call detail records, dialer and platform logs, and the consent record for every number at issue, and send preservation demands to each lead and dialing vendor.
- Export opt-out and internal do-not-call records for the seller and each vendor, with dates.
- Pull National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and Registry versions used.
- Collect vendor contracts, scripts, recorded messages, caller ID assignments, and the lead forms with their disclosure language.
- Talk to a lawyer before responding to the claim, contacting the consumer, or confronting a vendor about the calls.
Questions warranty sellers ask about telemarketing risk
We only buy “live transfer” calls. Are we safe?
Not automatically. A live transfer still starts with a call someone placed on your behalf, often a prerecorded one. The FCC’s forfeiture order described prerecorded messages that led to transfers to client sales agents. Ask how the call started, and get the consent record behind it.
Does a vendor’s indemnity protect us?
It helps if the vendor can pay. It doesn’t stop the suit, and a vendor running an unlawful operation may not be around to honor it. Indemnity works best alongside audit rights, consent-record delivery terms, and the right to stop a campaign immediately.
Can we call customers whose original warranty is expiring?
Customers who bought from you have an established business relationship for Do Not Call purposes, for 18 months after the transaction, under § 64.1200(f)(5). Prerecorded marketing calls, and autodialed marketing calls to cell phones, still need signed written consent, and the script has to describe the product accurately.
Defending warranty sellers in TCPA cases
If your company sells vehicle service contracts or home warranties and has been sued over calls made on its behalf, the vendor contracts, consent records, and scripts usually decide whether the seller can separate itself from the caller. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving warranty telemarketing and lead vendors. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is 47 U.S.C. § 227. The FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule at 16 C.F.R. § 310.4, both as of October 28, 2026. The FCC orders are the Forfeiture Order, FCC 23-64 (Aug. 3, 2023), and FCC 26-67 (released Oct. 1, 2026).
The court decisions are FCC v. AT&T, Inc., No. 25-406 (U.S. June 4, 2026), and Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026).
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of October 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.