Offshore Call Centers and the TCPA: Liability and Evidence Problems

When an offshore call center makes the calls, the TCPA lawsuit usually lands on the U.S. brand those calls were selling. The FCC has said a seller can be vicariously liable for a telemarketer’s violations under federal agency law, and it pointed to vendors outside the United States as a reason why. The harder problem is evidence. The consent records and dialer logs that could win the case may sit with a vendor a U.S. court can’t easily reach.

Why does the brand get sued when a foreign vendor made the calls?

Because the plaintiff can reach the brand, and the law lets the plaintiff try.

The Supreme Court noted in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez that “the Federal Communications Commission has ruled that, under federal common-law principles of agency, there is vicarious liability for TCPA violations.” That ruling is the FCC’s 2013 Dish Network declaratory ruling, which said a seller “may be held vicariously liable under federal common law principles of agency” for violations committed by third-party telemarketers.

The FCC explained why it took that view. Letting sellers avoid liability by outsourcing would leave consumers without a remedy, the Commission said, and that concern was strongest where the telemarketers were “judgment proof, unidentifiable, or located outside the United States, as is often the case,” per the ruling. A brand that uses an overseas vendor should assume a plaintiff will name the brand first and sort out the vendor later.

The statute’s Do Not Call remedy points the same way. A person who received more than one call in a year “by or on behalf of the same entity” in violation of the regulations may sue, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).

What facts decide whether the brand is liable?

The relationship between the brand and the vendor, shown through documents.

The FCC drew a line. It said it did not think that “an action taken for the benefit of a seller by a third-party retailer, without more, is sufficient to trigger the liability of a seller,” per the Dish ruling. The ruling then lists the kinds of facts that can support apparent authority. They include letting the vendor into the seller’s customer systems, letting it use the seller’s trade name, and having the seller approve or write the call scripts.

The ruling also says a seller would be responsible for unauthorized calls by an otherwise authorized telemarketer if the seller “knew (or reasonably should have known) that the telemarketer was violating the TCPA” on its behalf and failed to stop it, per the ruling. Complaints forwarded by the vendor, and what the brand did about them, often become the center of the case.

The firm’s post on vicarious liability for vendor calls covers the agency standards in more depth. This post focuses on what’s different when the vendor is overseas.

Can the brand use the Do Not Call safe harbor if the vendor dialed?

Possibly, but the brand has to prove its own procedures and the vendor’s.

Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2), any person or entity making telephone solicitations “(or on whose behalf telephone solicitations are made)” isn’t liable for a registry violation if it shows the violation resulted from error and that it meets the rule’s standards. One of those standards is that it “has trained its personnel, and any entity assisting in its compliance,” in its Do Not Call procedures. Another is a process for scrubbing numbers against the national registry, with records documenting that process.

Those records usually live in the vendor’s systems. If the vendor is overseas and stops cooperating, the brand may have a good safe harbor defense and no way to prove it. The same is true of the internal do-not-call list the rules require, which must cover calls “made by or on behalf of” the seller under § 64.1200(d).

How does a defendant get records from a vendor outside the United States?

Start with the contract, then the federal rules, then treaty and diplomatic channels.

The fastest route is usually the vendor’s own cooperation under the services agreement. A party must produce documents in its “possession, custody, or control” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1). If the brand’s contract gives it a right to demand the vendor’s call records, expect the plaintiff to argue those records are within the brand’s control, and to ask for them. That cuts both ways. The same contract right helps the brand get the records it needs for its defense.

When cooperation fails, testimony and documents can be sought through formal channels. A deposition in a foreign country may be taken “under an applicable treaty or convention,” by letter of request, on notice, or before a person the court commissions, under Rule 28(b)(1). Federal law gives the State Department power to receive a letter rogatory or request issued by a U.S. tribunal and “to transmit it to the foreign or international tribunal, officer, or agency to whom it is addressed,” under 28 U.S.C. § 1781(a)(2).

These channels take time, and TCPA cases don’t pause while a request is pending. The earlier a defense team identifies what it needs from the vendor, the better its chances of having the records before the key deadlines in the case.

What does the Hague Evidence Convention add?

A treaty process for countries that have joined it, with limits on document discovery.

Under Article 1 of the Hague Evidence Convention, a judicial authority of one Contracting State may ask the competent authority of another “by means of a Letter of Request, to obtain evidence, or to perform some other judicial act.” Article 23 lets a Contracting State declare that it won’t execute Letters of Request issued to obtain “pre-trial discovery of documents as known in Common Law countries,” per the Convention. Whether the vendor’s country has joined the Convention, and whether it made that declaration, needs to be checked for each case.

The Convention isn’t the only option. In Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. District Court, the Supreme Court rejected the view that it is the exclusive way to get evidence abroad. Treating it as exclusive “would effectively subject every American court hearing a case involving a national of a contracting state to the internal laws of that state,” the Court wrote. That case involved discovery from a party. For a foreign vendor that isn’t a party, the treaty and letter-rogatory routes are often the ones left.

Offshore TCPA claims and where the evidence sits

What to do the week a claim arrives

Act before the vendor relationship changes. The firm’s California TCPA defense lawyers page covers the defenses these cases usually turn on. In the first week:

1. Put the call logs, platform data, and consent records for the plaintiff’s number under a litigation hold, and send the vendor a written hold request under the contract.
2. Pull the opt-out and internal do-not-call records for that number, with dates.
3. Find the National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and version dates for the campaigns involved.
4. Collect the vendor contracts, including audit and records clauses and any indemnity terms, along with scripts and recorded or AI-voice message files.
5. Talk to a lawyer before contacting the plaintiff, ending the vendor relationship, or discussing the claim with the vendor.

Questions businesses ask about offshore call centers and the TCPA

Should we fire the vendor as soon as we’re sued?

Not before the records are secured. A vendor that’s just lost the account has less reason to help, and the records it holds may be the brand’s best defense. Lock down the data first, and get advice on how the termination will look in the case.

Can we make the vendor pay if we lose?

That depends on the indemnity clause and on whether the vendor has assets anyone can reach. A strong clause against a vendor with no reachable assets may not be worth much. The firm’s post on vendor contracts and indemnity covers what those clauses usually say.

Will a foreign vendor’s consent records be admissible?

Getting the records is the first problem. Getting them admitted is the second, because a custodian may need to explain how they were kept. The firm’s post on vendor-held consent records and hearsay walks through that issue.

What contract terms help before any claim?

Terms that give the brand the right to demand call records on short notice, keep copies in a U.S. system, and require the vendor to cooperate in litigation. Those terms don’t stop a lawsuit, but they decide whether the brand can defend it with its own evidence.

Defending offshore telemarketing claims

If your company has been sued over calls placed by an overseas vendor, the contracts and records you can reach now often decide how the case goes. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving outsourced and offshore telemarketing. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

The statute is 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. The FCC’s agency ruling is the Dish Network declaratory ruling, FCC 13-54. The Supreme Court decisions are Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016) and Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. District Court, 482 U.S. 522 (1987). The evidence rules are Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28, Rule 34, 28 U.S.C. § 1781, and the Hague Evidence Convention.

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of October 20, 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.