Mortgage Servicers: Required Live Contact vs. TCPA Revocation

A mortgage servicer has to try to reach a delinquent borrower, and it has to stop robocalls and robotexts when the borrower says stop. Both duties are real, and they collide less often than they seem to. Regulation X requires good-faith efforts at live contact and a written notice. The TCPA’s revocation rule governs autodialed and prerecorded calls and texts, not every call. A servicer that separates the channels can usually satisfy both, but it needs to design the process before a borrower sends the first stop request.

What does Regulation X require servicers to do?

The early intervention rule is 12 C.F.R. § 1024.39. It has two parts. The first says that “a servicer shall establish or make good faith efforts to establish live contact with a delinquent borrower” by a set day in the delinquency and again after each missed payment, and that “Promptly after establishing live contact with a borrower, the servicer shall inform the borrower about the availability of loss mitigation options, if appropriate.”

The second part is written. Under paragraph (b), the servicer “shall provide to a delinquent borrower a written notice” with specified information, including “A statement encouraging the borrower to contact the servicer.” The regulation sets the timing for both parts, and I’m leaving the day counts to the rule so that no one relies on a number from a blog post.

Two exemptions matter here. When a borrower has sent a notice under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s cease-communication provision, a servicer subject to that act “Is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section,” which is the live-contact requirement, per paragraph (d)(1). A similar partial exemption applies while a borrower is a debtor in bankruptcy. Those exemptions suggest the regulator expected borrowers to be able to cut off calls and wrote an exit for that situation.

What does the TCPA require when a borrower says stop?

The TCPA’s revocation rule applies to automated contact. Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10), a called party “may revoke prior express consent” to receive calls or texts “by using any reasonable method to clearly express a desire not to receive further calls or text messages from the caller or sender.” If the person revokes, “that consent is considered definitively revoked and the caller may not send additional robocalls and robotexts.” Requests must be honored “within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days from receipt of such request,” the rule says.

The rule covers calls “made pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3)” of the section, which are calls using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice. After Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, an autodialer is a device that “must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random or sequential generator or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.” Most servicing platforms don’t qualify. A servicer’s prerecorded messages and texts sent through an autodialer, if it has one, do.

On consent, the starting point is helpful for servicers. In its 2015 order, the FCC recited that a party who gives a wireless number to a creditor on a credit application “reasonably evidences prior express consent by the cell phone subscriber to be contacted at the number regarding the debt,” in paragraph 141 of FCC 15-72. That consent can be revoked, which is the point of the 2024 rule.

So which wins, Regulation X or the revocation rule?

Neither, because they govern different things. Regulation X requires an effort to establish live contact. The TCPA revocation rule limits robocalls and robotexts. A call dialed by a person on a platform that isn’t an autodialer, with no prerecorded voice, falls outside the revocation rule, and it can still satisfy the live-contact duty.

I’d stop short of calling that a safe harbor, for reasons I’ll get to after the table:

The revocation rule is one set of limits among several. Other laws that I haven’t covered here also restrict collection calls, and a borrower who tells a servicer to stop calling may be invoking the FDCPA’s cease-communication right at the same time. The regulation treats that notice as an exemption, so a servicer should read stop requests with both statutes in mind. A servicer also shouldn’t dial manually just to get around a revocation. A court or regulator that sees a pattern of calls to a borrower who said stop may not care how the number was dialed. And the written notice requirement doesn’t depend on the phone, so the mailing is the channel that keeps working.

What about the revoke-all provision?

It’s delayed, not gone. The FCC’s 2024 revocation order says a revocation in response to one type of message applies to all future robocalls and robotexts from that caller on unrelated matters. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau first delayed that requirement to April 11, 2026, in DA 25-312. Then, in DA 26-12, adopted in January 2026, it found “good cause exists to extend the effective date for this requirement until January 31, 2027,” to allow time to review the record on a pending rulemaking. For a servicer with separate systems for payment reminders and for loss-mitigation outreach, the extra time is a chance to map those systems, because a stop request to one may eventually need to reach the others.

How should the file show what happened?

When a borrower later alleges calls after a stop request, the servicer needs a timeline it can produce without reconstructing it from memory. That means each contact attempt recorded with its date, its channel, who or what placed it, and whether it was automated. It also means the stop request itself is recorded with the date it arrived and the words the borrower used, since the revocation rule accepts “any reasonable method” and the borrower’s phrasing may not be the word STOP.

I’d also keep the Regulation X side of the file separate and complete: the dated written notices, the attempts at live contact, and the notes on why contact stopped. A servicer that can show it stopped robocalls on the day the rule required, and kept trying by mail and by manual call where the regulation still asked for effort, has a coherent story. A servicer whose records can’t distinguish an automated call from a manual one doesn’t, and the TCPA claim often depends on that distinction.

What to build before the next stop request

1. Write down which channels the servicer uses, and which of them use an autodialer or a prerecorded voice.
2. Route every stop request, from any channel, into one suppression record with the date and the channel.
3. Separate manual calls from automated ones in the call log, so the record shows who dialed and how.
4. Keep proof of every written notice mailed under the early intervention rule.
5. Talk to a lawyer before changing the contact strategy for a borrower who has complained, sued, or sent a cease-communication notice.

The firm’s defending TCPA class actions in California page describes how these claims move through court. For related reading, see the earlier post on mortgage trigger leads and the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act.

Questions servicers ask about calls and stop requests

If a borrower tells us to stop calling, are we in violation of Regulation X for not reaching them?

The regulation asks for good-faith efforts, not an assured contact, and it provides exemptions where a borrower has sent a cease-communication notice or is in bankruptcy. A written notice remains available. Document why contact stopped.

Does a manual call after a stop request violate the TCPA?

The TCPA revocation rule covers autodialed and prerecorded calls and texts. A call placed by a person without an autodialer or a prerecorded voice is outside it, but other laws may apply, and I’d treat repeated calls to a borrower who said stop as a risk.

Can we text a delinquent borrower about the account?

Only if the borrower has consented and hasn’t revoked. A number given on the loan application is evidence of consent for calls about the debt, per the FCC’s 2015 order, and a stop reply ends it for automated texts.

Should we keep calling if the borrower has a lawyer or has sued us?

Treat that as a signal to stop and ask counsel. A represented borrower, a pending suit, or a cease-communication notice each changes what contact is appropriate, and the answer depends on the facts and on the other laws that apply to servicers.

Does a revocation by one borrower on a joint loan stop calls to the other?

Not necessarily. Consent attaches to the number and the person who gave it. Keep separate records for each borrower and number.

Defending claims by delinquent borrowers

If your company has been sued or received a demand letter from a borrower who says calls or texts continued after a stop request, the call log, the channel records, and the dated suppression entries will decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving servicing calls and texts to borrowers. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

The statute is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act at 47 U.S.C. § 227. The regulations are 12 C.F.R. § 1024.39 and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as published in the eCFR on March 22, 2026. The FCC orders are FCC 15-72 (July 10, 2015) DA 25-312 (Apr. 7, 2025), and DA 26-12 (Jan. 6, 2026).

The court decision is Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021).

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of March 22, 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.