Reassigned Numbers Database: How the TCPA Safe Harbor Works
A customer consents to texts and then drops the number. The carrier ages it and hands it to a stranger, who starts receiving your automated messages. Under the FCC’s rules, a company that checked the federal Reassigned Numbers Database and got a “no” before the call isn’t liable for that mistake. The caller has to prove every element. A company that builds the database query into its sending process, and keeps the response, usually has a complete answer to this kind of claim.
Why are reassigned numbers a TCPA problem at all?
Because consent belongs to the person who gave it, and the number doesn’t. The TCPA’s robocall provision bars automated or prerecorded calls to a cell phone without “the prior express consent of the called party,” and courts and the FCC have read “called party” to mean the person who has the number now.
The D.C. Circuit accepted that reading in ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018), holding that the FCC “could permissibly interpret” the term called party in the robocall provision “to refer to the current subscriber.” The same court then struck down the FCC’s 2015 answer to the problem, a rule that let callers make one free call after a reassignment. The court found that “the agency’s one-call safe harbor, at least as defended in the order, is arbitrary and capricious,” and it set aside “the Commission’s treatment of reassigned numbers as a whole.”
The court’s reasoning is worth knowing, because it’s the best statement of the caller’s side of the problem. The court asked “why does a caller’s reasonable reliance on a previous subscriber’s consent necessarily cease to be reasonable once there has been a single, post-reassignment call?” A first text to a reassigned number often gets no reply at all, so the caller learns nothing from it.
The earlier post on wrong-number exposure for businesses covers the broader wrong-number claim. This post covers the one tool the FCC built for it.
What does the safe harbor actually say?
It protects a caller whose database query returned an inaccurate “no.” The rule is 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(m). A person “will not be liable for violating the prohibitions in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3)” for a call to a number that was reassigned after consent was given, “if the person, bearing the burden of proof and persuasion, demonstrates” two things.
The first element is that the caller queried “the database operated by the Administrator” and, after getting a no, “has verified that the number has not been permanently disconnected since the date prior express consent was obtained.” The second element is that the call was “the result of the database erroneously returning” a no to a query made up of the number and the date consent was obtained.
So the query has two inputs, the number and the date consent was given. It has one acceptable output, a “no.” And the protection only matters when that “no” turns out to be wrong.
Which claims does the safe harbor cover?
Only claims under the robocall rules. Paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of § 64.1200 govern calls made with an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice, including the written-consent requirement for telemarketing robocalls. A Do Not Call Registry claim under paragraph (c) isn’t on the list.
That gap matters in practice. A marketing text to a reassigned number can draw two claims at once: a consent claim under § 227(b), and a Registry claim if the new subscriber registered the number. The safe harbor answers the first. The Registry claim needs its own defenses, such as the written-procedures safe harbor in § 64.1200(c)(2) or the argument that the platform didn’t send the message using regulated equipment.
How recent does the database check have to be?
The most recent update before the call. The FCC’s Second Report and Order, FCC 18-177, which created the database, said callers must show “they appropriately checked the most recent update of the database” and got a no when they submitted “either the date they contacted that consumer or the date on which the caller could be confident that the consumer could still be reached at that number.” It added that callers “bear the burden of proof and persuasion to show that they checked the database before making a call.”
The FCC rejected a looser standard. The order states “we decline to expand the period of time between checking the database and making a call beyond the most recent update to the database.” It paired that with a 45-day minimum aging period for disconnected numbers, so a caller using current data shouldn’t reach a reassigned number unless the database itself is wrong.
The practical lesson is that a one-time scrub of an old list doesn’t work. A company that checks a customer file in January and texts it all year has a January query and a lot of later calls. The safe harbor follows the query, not the list.
Do commercial data vendors qualify?
No. The FCC said in FCC 18-177 “We also decline to extend the safe harbor to other commercial databases.” Private phone-intelligence tools can still be useful evidence of good faith, and they may catch reassignments the federal database misses. They just don’t trigger § 64.1200(m).
Here’s a strategic point that gets overlooked. A company that uses both the federal database and a commercial tool, and then calls a number the commercial tool flagged as reassigned, has created evidence against itself. If a vendor tool is part of the process, its flags should suppress the number too.
| Situation | Safe harbor available? | What the caller has to show |
|---|---|---|
| Federal database queried before the call, returned “no,” and was wrong | Yes, for (a)(1) through (a)(3) claims | The query, the consent date used, the “no” response, and the date of the update |
| Database returned “yes” and the company called anyway | No | Nothing helps; the company had notice |
| Only a commercial vendor tool was checked | No | Good faith may still matter to willfulness |
| Database checked months before the call | Not for later calls | A query against the most recent update before each call |
| Registry claim by the new subscriber | No; § 64.1200(m) doesn’t reach paragraph (c) | Registry scrub records and written procedures |
Does the safe harbor still matter after McLaughlin?
Yes, though plaintiffs will test it. The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. held that district courts aren’t bound by the FCC’s interpretations of the TCPA in private suits. The safe harbor is a codified regulation adopted after notice and comment, and the FCC said in FCC 18-177 that “Section 227 supplies us the authority to establish a safe harbor.” A defendant relying on it should be ready to defend both the regulation and the reasonableness of its own reliance on the database. The earlier post on whether consent expires for dormant customers covers a related reliance problem.
The firm’s TCPA defense attorneys in California usually ask for the query logs in the first week, because that file decides whether the safe harbor is a motion or just an argument.
What to collect when a new subscriber sues
- Place a litigation hold on the platform’s send logs, the consent record for the original customer, and the opt-out history for the number.
- Export the internal do-not-call list and any wrong-number replies, with dates, so the first notice of a reassignment can be fixed in time.
- Pull the Reassigned Numbers Database query records: the number submitted, the consent date submitted, the response, and the update date, along with the Registry scrub files for the same period.
- Gather the vendor contracts, the sending-platform configuration, and the message templates or recorded files for the campaign.
- Have a lawyer review the file before replying to the demand, contacting the new subscriber, or proposing a payment.
Questions businesses ask about reassigned numbers
Does the safe harbor cover text messages?
Yes, to the extent the text claim arises under the robocall rules in § 64.1200(a)(1) through (a)(3). The FCC and most courts treat texts as calls for those purposes. The safe harbor doesn’t cover a separate Do Not Call claim by the same person, which has to be defended under the Registry rules.
What date should we submit with the query?
The date the original customer gave consent. The rule describes a query “consisting of the number for which prior express consent was obtained” and the date consent was obtained. Submitting the account-opening date, when consent came later, or a list-import date, risks a mismatch a plaintiff will point out.
What if the new subscriber replied wrong number and we kept texting?
Then the database isn’t the issue anymore. The company had actual notice, and later messages are the hardest kind to defend. Wrong-number replies should feed the suppression list automatically, the same way stop requests do.
Is a company required to use the database?
No rule requires it. The FCC built the database as a tool and tied the safe harbor to it. A company that skips it gives up the safe harbor and has to defend a reassigned-number claim on consent and good faith alone.
Defending reassigned-number claims
If your company has been sued by someone who received automated texts or calls meant for a former customer, the database query records and the date of the first wrong-number notice usually decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving calls and texts to reassigned numbers. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The FCC’s rule is 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(m), as published in the eCFR on July 1, 2026. The order that created the database and the safe harbor is the FCC’s Second Report and Order, FCC 18-177 (Dec. 13, 2018).
The court decision is ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of July 3, 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.