Prerecorded Calls to Home Landlines: TCPA Exemptions and Call Limits

Three prerecorded calls in any 30-day period. That’s the cap federal rules put on most prerecorded calls a business makes to a home landline without consent, and it has applied since July 20, 2023. Telemarketing messages need written consent at any volume. Informational calls can go out without consent, but only inside the cap and with an automated opt-out. A company sued over landline robocalls may have an exemption defense, if its call logs and audio files prove it.

What does the TCPA say about prerecorded calls to a home phone?

The statute bans them without the called party’s prior express consent, subject to an emergency exception, a federal-government debt exception, and exemptions the FCC creates. A “prerecorded” call here means one that plays an artificial or recorded voice instead of a live person. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act makes it unlawful “to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party,” under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B).

The exemptions come from Congress’s grant of rulemaking power. The FCC “may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements of paragraph (1)(B)” calls not made for a commercial purpose and certain commercial calls that won’t adversely affect privacy rights and carry no unsolicited advertisement, according to § 227(b)(2)(B). In 2019 the TRACED Act added a command: every such exemption must set limits on “the number of such calls that a calling party may make to a particular called party,” per § 227(b)(2)(I).

The exposure is real. The private right of action allows “$500 in damages for each such violation,” and a court may increase the award up to three times that amount for a willful or knowing violation, under § 227(b)(3).

Which prerecorded landline calls can go out without consent?

Five categories, each with conditions. I think the commercial category deserves the closest look. The FCC’s rule, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3), says a prerecorded call to a residential line “requires no consent” if it fits one of them. Ordinary commercial telemarketing isn’t on the list. A prerecorded message that “includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing” needs “the prior express written consent of the called party,” under the same paragraph. Nonprofit calls get their own treatment in our post on TCPA exemptions for nonprofit and political calls.

The FCC said its non-commercial exemption includes, for example, “calls conducting research, market surveys, political polling, or similar noncommercial activities,” in its 2020 exemptions order (FCC 20-186). In the same order, commenters described commercial calls like refill reminders and outage updates, and the FCC agreed such calls should stay exempt “if these calls do not contain advertising or solicit the purchase of goods or services and otherwise conform to the requirements of the TRACED Act.” Our post on survey and market research calls covers when a survey crosses into telemarketing.

Collection calls usually land in the commercial category too. In Herrera v. AllianceOne Receivable Management, Inc., a federal court in San Diego dismissed, at the pleading stage, TCPA claims over collection calls to a home line, even though the plaintiffs said they didn’t owe the debt, finding the calls “were made for a commercial purpose and did not transmit an unsolicited advertisement.” That 2016 ruling came before the call caps existed. Today the same calls must also stay inside the cap.

I’d treat the line between informational and telemarketing as the first thing to test in any claim. One sentence promoting a new product can turn an exempt reminder into a telemarketing call that needed written consent.

When did the three-call limit start, and what counts as a call?

The FCC adopted the caps in December 2020, but they didn’t take effect until July 20, 2023. The Federal Register version of FCC 20-186 set a general effective date of March 29, 2021, while stating that the amendments containing the call caps and opt-out rules “are delayed indefinitely” until the FCC announced a date, according to the February 25, 2021 notice. The FCC later announced that those amendments “are effective July 20, 2023,” in a January 20, 2023 notice. A claim about calls placed before that date shouldn’t be measured against the caps at all.

The FCC also fixed a drafting problem. Its December 2022 reconsideration order, FCC 22-100, amended the rule to make clear that “consent for informational (i.e., non-telemarketing) calls to residential telephone numbers can be obtained orally or in writing.” That’s why the current rule allows calls over the cap with “the prior express consent of the called party,” not written consent, as § 64.1200(a)(3) now reads.

The FCC left one question unanswered in 2022, and the rule text doesn’t answer it either. An industry group asked the FCC to count only calls that reach the person or their voicemail, and the FCC wrote “we decline to address the request at this time,” in footnote 75 of FCC 22-100. Until someone answers it, I’d count every dial attempt. A dialer setting that stops at three attempts per number per rolling 30 days takes the question off the table.

The cap applies only to prerecorded calls. The FCC noted that “callers can use a live agent to initiate such calls without running afoul of the TCPA,” in FCC 20-186. A fourth reminder in a month can go out through a live agent.

What must every prerecorded message say, and how must the opt-out work?

Every prerecorded message has to identify the caller up front and give a callback number. Exempt calls also need an automated opt-out. The statute directs the FCC to require that all such messages “shall, at the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call,” under § 227(d)(3). The FCC’s version requires a business to state “the name under which the entity is registered to conduct business with the State Corporation Commission (or comparable regulatory authority),” under § 64.1200(b)(1).

For exempt calls and telemarketing to residential lines, the message must “provide an automated, interactive voice- and/or key press-activated opt-out mechanism for the called person to make a do-not-call request,” and the instructions must come “within two (2) seconds of providing the identification information,” under § 64.1200(b)(3). When someone opts out, the system must record the number and “immediately terminate the call.” A message left on an answering machine must add a toll-free number that connects back to the same mechanism.

The callback number in the message also matters. For exempt calls to residential subscribers, it “must permit any individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours,” under § 64.1200(b)(2). And exempt callers must keep a written do-not-call policy and train staff on it. They must honor each request within a reasonable time, which “may not exceed ten (10) business days from the receipt of such request,” under § 64.1200(d)(3). That limit was 30 days until April 11, 2025.

The opt-out rules also decide whether an exemption applies at all. An exemption covers a call only if the caller “honors the called party’s request to opt out of future calls as required in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section,” per § 64.1200(a)(3)(ii) through (v). A message without a working automated opt-out, by voice or key press, doesn’t just break a technical rule. A plaintiff can argue it takes the call outside the exemption. The two-second timing is the requirement I’d audit first, because the script may come from a vendor, and the recording itself is what gets judged.

Landline or cell phone: how is the line type proven?

Line type decides which rule applies, so it gets litigated. The residential exemptions don’t reach cell phones. The cell provision of the statute covers calls “to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service,” and other services, without any residential limit, under § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). An informational prerecorded call that would be exempt on a home landline generally needs prior express consent on a cell phone. The flip side helps defendants: the landline provision covers only a “residential telephone line,” so a business landline generally sits outside § 227(b)(1)(B).

Porting is the trap. Numbers can move from landline to wireless service. The FCC’s rule gives a caller a short grace period: no liability for a voice call to a number ported from wireline service if the call was “not knowingly made to a wireless number” and was made “within 15 days of the porting of the number from wireline to wireless service,” as long as the number wasn’t already on the national registry or the caller’s own do-not-call list, under § 64.1200(a)(1)(iv). After 15 days, the safe harbor ends.

Database lookups help but don’t settle it. In Breda v. Cellco Partnership, the First Circuit held that a hybrid Wi-Fi and cellular service was “cellular telephone service” even though the number was listed as wireline in an industry database. The court said the lower court and the caller “place too much emphasis on the Neustar listing,” and it applied the FCC’s statement, quoted in Breda, that a number is assigned to cellular service “if the number is currently being used in connection with that service.”

The proof usually comes from carrier and porting records and the plaintiff’s own bills, matched against the date of each call. I’d ask for them early. A number that was a home landline when the calls went out is a different case from one already on wireless service.

How much weight do the FCC’s rules carry after McLaughlin?

Less than they used to on questions of interpretation, but these rules stand on firmer ground than most. In June 2025, the Supreme Court held in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. that “The District Court is not bound by the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA.” District courts in private suits now decide what the statute means for themselves, giving the agency’s view appropriate respect. The Court added that review may also include “whether the rule or order was arbitrary and capricious under the APA or otherwise was unlawful.”

The residential exemptions are different from an interpretive ruling. Congress told the FCC in § 227(b)(2)(B) that it “may, by rule or order, exempt” these calls, and then told it to set call limits. When a statute delegates authority like that, a reviewing court’s job includes “recognizing constitutional delegations,” as the Supreme Court explained in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. I don’t read McLaughlin as loosening that. The three-call cap is the kind of rule Congress asked for.

My view is that attacking the residential rules is a double-edged strategy for a defendant. The exemptions exist only because the FCC created them. Knock out the exemptions, and nearly every non-emergency prerecorded call to a home could need consent under the statute. McLaughlin cuts both ways on the FCC’s older orders too. In Herrera, the court followed the FCC’s position that collection calls are exempt commercial calls, saying “It is for the FCC, not the Court,” to decide whether that exemption reaches calls to people who don’t owe the debt. That deference helped the defendant. McLaughlin addressed the FCC’s interpretations of the statute. Where an FCC order rests on a reading of the statute, such as what calls “will not adversely affect the privacy rights” under § 227(b)(2)(B), a court can now decide that question for itself. A defendant relying on an FCC order should be ready to defend its reasoning, not just cite it.

The consent standard is a closer question. The statute’s own consent term is “prior express consent,” while the rule demands written consent for prerecorded telemarketing. But § 227(b)(3) also lets people sue over violations of “the regulations prescribed under this subsection.” That gap helps a defendant only if a court finds the written-consent requirement beyond the FCC’s authority or otherwise invalid. It’s an argument to preserve, not one to rely on.

What to pull together when a landline robocall claim arrives

1. Put a litigation hold on the call logs, dialer data, and consent records for every number the claim involves.
2. Pull the opt-out and internal do-not-call logs, with the date each request came in and the date it took effect.
3. Pull the National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and the registry version dates you used.
4. Collect the audio files and scripts for each campaign, along with vendor contracts and carrier or porting records showing each number’s line type on each call date.
5. Talk to a lawyer before you answer a demand letter, contact the caller, or offer anything to settle.

The firm’s page on TCPA litigation defense explains how claims involving prerecorded calls to residential landlines move from a demand letter to a lawsuit.

Questions businesses ask about prerecorded landline calls

Does the three-call cap apply to calls made by a live person?

No. The cap and the opt-out mechanism apply to calls that use an artificial or prerecorded voice. The FCC said in its 2020 order that callers can use a live agent instead without violating the TCPA’s prerecorded-voice restriction. Live calls can still raise Do Not Call and calling-hours issues if they’re telemarketing, so a live agent doesn’t solve every problem. For informational calls to a home landline, though, it’s the simplest way past the cap.

Can we ask for consent during an exempt call?

Yes. The FCC’s 2020 order said callers can use an exempt call to obtain consent for more calls, if the call otherwise meets the exemption’s conditions, and its 2022 reconsideration order confirmed that consent for informational calls can be oral or written. If a called party agrees on the call, record that agreement and keep it with the account. Consent to exceed the cap doesn’t cover telemarketing, which still needs prior express written consent.

Do the residential exemptions cover calls to cell phones?

No. The exemptions in § 64.1200(a)(3) apply only to residential lines. A prerecorded informational call to a cell phone generally needs prior express consent, subject to separate, narrower FCC exemptions. A short grace period can apply to voice calls made within 15 days after a landline number ports to wireless service, if the caller didn’t know of the port and the number wasn’t on a do-not-call list.

Do unanswered calls count toward the three-call limit?

The FCC hasn’t answered it in its rules. When an industry group asked it to count only calls that reach the person or their voicemail, the FCC declined to address the request in its 2022 reconsideration order. Until it does, I’d count every attempt.

If your company is defending a landline robocall claim

If your company has been sued over prerecorded calls to home phones, the call counts and each number’s line type on the call date are key facts to establish early. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving prerecorded calls to residential landlines. 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 FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as in effect on September 15, 2025. The FCC’s 2020 order is the TCPA Exemptions Order, FCC 20-186, 35 FCC Rcd 15188 (2020), published at 86 Fed. Reg. 11443 (Feb. 25, 2021). The reconsideration order is FCC 22-100, released December 27, 2022. The effective date appears in the notice at 88 Fed. Reg. 3668 (Jan. 20, 2023).

The Supreme Court decisions are McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-1226 (U.S. June 20, 2025), and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). The other decisions are Breda v. Cellco Partnership, 934 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019), and Herrera v. AllianceOne Receivable Management, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 3d 1282 (S.D. Cal. 2016).

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of September 15, 2025. 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.