A package delivery company can send a recipient an automated text or prerecorded call about a delivery without consent, under an FCC exemption adopted in 2014 and now codified at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(9)(i). The message has to be free to the recipient and meet seven conditions, and each message is judged on its own. One promotional line, or a fourth notice on a signature package, can take a single text outside it, though the rest of the campaign keeps its protection.
Where does the package delivery exemption come from?
From a power Congress gave the FCC in the statute itself. Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2)(C), the Commission may exempt from the cell-phone restriction “calls to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service that are not charged to the called party, subject to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe as necessary in the interest of the privacy rights this section is intended to protect.”
The FCC first used that power for package deliveries. In its Cargo Airline Association order, FCC 14-32, released March 27, 2014, the Commission granted an industry request “to exempt its proposed free-to-end-user notifications to consumers’ wireless phones, subject to certain conditions.” In 2020, after the TRACED Act told the FCC to revisit its exemptions, the Commission kept this one and wrote it into the rule. The 2020 order, FCC 20-186, found “no record evidence that it has resulted in excessive calls or that the conditions imposed have unduly hindered the ability of package delivery companies to make effective use of this exemption.”
What does a delivery text have to do to qualify?
Meet every condition in § 64.1200(a)(9)(i), and cost the recipient nothing. The opening clause of paragraph (a)(9) limits all of its exemptions to calls that are “not charged to the called person or counted against the called person’s plan limits on minutes or texts.” Most carriers’ ordinary business messaging doesn’t meet that test on its own. Delivery companies that rely on the exemption usually send through a free-to-end-user arrangement set up for the purpose.
| Condition in § 64.1200(a)(9)(i) | What it requires | How it gets lost |
|---|---|---|
| Recipient only | Sent to the package recipient’s number | Texting the sender, or a number from an old order |
| Identification | Names the delivery company and gives contact information | A white-label alert that shows only the retailer’s name |
| No marketing | No telemarketing, solicitation, or advertising content | A coupon, an app download pitch, or a survey link |
| Length | About one minute for calls, 160 characters or less for texts | Long texts that split into several messages |
| Frequency | One notice per package, plus up to two more for missed signature attempts | Out for delivery, arriving soon, and delivered, all on one package |
| Opt-out | Honored within six business days | Opt-outs handled by the shipper’s system, not the courier’s |
| Opt-out instructions | Each notice explains how to opt out, and texts accept STOP | Templates that drop the instruction to fit the character limit |
The frequency limit is the one most modern tracking programs break, because customers have come to expect an alert at every stage of the trip. The rule permits “only one notification (whether by voice call or text message) per package,” with extra notices allowed only when a signature is required and the recipient missed an earlier attempt. A courier that sends a shipped alert, an out-for-delivery alert, and a delivered photo has sent two texts the exemption doesn’t cover.
Does breaking one condition void the whole program?
No. The FCC made the exemption message-specific. The 2014 order says that “these conditions are message-specific, and that a delivery company may not claim this exemption for any text that is charged to the called party or fails to meet the conditions outlined in this Order.” A footnote in the same order adds that “loss of exempt-status applies on an individual-text-by-individual-text basis.”
That cuts both ways in litigation. A plaintiff can’t use one bad template to strip the exemption from a courier’s entire text history. But a class can be defined around the template, and every text sent from it is a potential violation. A company defending a delivery-text class action should map each template, and its send dates, against the seven conditions before deciding which texts it can defend under the exemption and which need another answer.
Do delivery companies even need the exemption after Duguid?
Less than they did in 2014, but it still matters. The exemption answers the cell-phone restriction in § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), which reaches autodialed calls and calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice. After Facebook v. Duguid, most systems that text from a list of shipments aren’t autodialers, and the earlier post on autodialer defenses after Duguid covers that argument.
Prerecorded voice calls are different. A recorded delivery call or an AI-voice delivery call is covered by the cell-phone rule no matter how the number was dialed, and the exemption is often the cleanest answer for those calls. It also gives a defendant a second ground for texts, which matters in a court that reads the autodialer definition broadly or in a state with its own dialing statute. Relying on the exemption alone is a weaker position than having consent, but most delivery companies never deal with the recipient before the package ships.
Does the exemption cover a retailer’s own shipping texts?
Probably not, at least not as written. The rule covers “Calls made by a package delivery company to notify a consumer about a package delivery,” and the FCC’s 2020 order said the conditions “limit the class of calling parties (package delivery companies).” An online store that sends its own shipping updates is in a weaker position than a courier, and it usually has a better answer anyway, because the customer gave a number at checkout. The earlier post on abandoned-cart and order texts covers that consent.
The open question is the in-house delivery fleet. A grocery chain or furniture retailer that runs its own trucks is, in a plain sense, delivering packages. No FCC order addresses whether that makes it a package delivery company under the rule, and a business in that position should treat the exemption as a backup argument, not the plan.
What to pull when a delivery-text claim arrives
- Put a litigation hold on the send logs for the claimant’s number, the package records showing what was shipped and whether a signature was required, and any consent the shipper passed along.
- Export the opt-out history for the number from every system that handles replies, including the shipper’s, with dates.
- Pull the Registry scrub records for any message that could be read as marketing, along with the Registry version dates.
- Collect the messaging vendor contract showing the free-to-end-user arrangement, every notification template, and any recorded or AI-voice call scripts.
- Have a lawyer review the file before answering the demand or making any offer to the claimant.
The vendor contract is the document companies forget. The exemption fails on every message that was charged to the recipient, and the proof that a message was free usually sits in the aggregator agreement, not in the courier’s own systems. Lawyers handling TCPA defense will ask for it first.
Questions about package delivery texts and the TCPA
Can the shipper’s consent cover the courier’s texts?
The FCC didn’t decide that. The 2014 order says “we do not reach its request that we clarify that it may rely on consumer consent to receive delivery notifications obtained via a third party.” A courier with a contract stating the shipper obtained consent has an argument, but it’s a consent argument, separate from the exemption, and its strength depends on what the customer actually agreed to at checkout.
Can a delivery text include a link to track the package?
Yes, if the link is about the delivery. Tracking information is the core of what the FCC exempted. A tracking page that also sells products, or a text that invites the recipient to download an app for discounts, is where a delivery notice starts to look like advertising content the rule excludes.
What damages apply when the exemption doesn’t?
A private plaintiff can recover up to $500 per message under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), and a court may increase that to up to three times the amount if it finds the violation was willful or knowing. Because delivery programs send millions of messages, a template that misses one condition can produce a class far larger than the courier expects.
Does the exemption apply to landlines?
It doesn’t need to. The exemption answers the cell-phone restriction. Prerecorded calls to residential landlines are governed by a separate rule, which reaches calls that include an advertisement or constitute telemarketing, and an informational delivery call generally falls outside it.
If your company is sued over delivery notifications
If your company is accused of sending automated delivery texts or calls without consent, the template history and the free-to-end-user arrangement usually decide which messages the exemption protects. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving package delivery notifications. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. The FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as published in the eCFR on July 1, 2026. The FCC orders are the Cargo Airline Association Order, FCC 14-32 (Mar. 27, 2014), and the TRACED Act exemptions Report and Order, FCC 20-186 (Dec. 30, 2020).
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of July 12, 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.