TCPA 2025 Year in Review: What Businesses Should Fix Before 2026

Four dates explain what changed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in 2025. On January 24, an appeals court threw out the FCC’s one-seller-at-a-time consent rule. On April 11, new opt-out rules took effect. On June 20, the Supreme Court freed trial courts from the FCC’s reading of the law. On December 3, a California federal judge certified for a possible appeal whether texts count as calls. Businesses that track those shifts start 2026 with more defenses than they had a year ago.

What happened to the FCC’s one-to-one consent rule?

It never took effect, and it’s gone from the rulebook. In 2023 the FCC adopted a rule that would have limited each consent to a single seller and to calls “logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted the consent.” In Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, decided January 24, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit held that the FCC had exceeded its statutory authority because the new restrictions “impermissibly conflict with the ordinary statutory meaning of” prior express consent. The court vacated that part of the FCC’s order.

The FCC then conformed its rules. According to its August 29, 2025 Federal Register notice, the court’s mandate issued April 30, 2025, and “Prior to the court’s mandate, the Commission had postponed the effective date of the revised rule and the revised rule had not gone into effect.” The notice reinstated the earlier definition of prior express written consent, effective that day.

Don’t read too much into the win. The Eleventh Circuit noted that the FCC’s 2012 written-consent order for marketing robocalls “is not at issue in this case,” and that rule is still in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. A lead form that lists many sellers was never barred by a federal rule in force, but a seller making autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls or texts still needs a signed written agreement. In my view, a consent record you can’t pull up in a week is worth about as much as no consent at all.

Which opt-out rules took effect in April, and which one was delayed?

Most of the FCC’s revocation rules took effect April 11, 2025. One piece was pushed to April 11, 2026.

The rules now in force say a consumer may revoke consent “by using any reasonable method to clearly express a desire not to receive further calls or text messages from the caller or sender,” and that replying with “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe” is a reasonable means per se, under § 64.1200(a)(10). A reply in other words still counts if a reasonable person would read it as a request to stop. For telemarketers, the internal do-not-call deadline is now capped: “This period may not exceed ten (10) business days from the receipt of such request,” per § 64.1200(d)(3).

The delayed piece is the “revoke all” requirement. In DA 25-312, released April 7, 2025, the FCC’s consumer bureau waived the rule until April 11, 2026 “to the extent the rule requires callers to treat a request to revoke consent made by a called party in response to one type of message as applicable to all future robocalls and robotexts from that caller on unrelated matters.” Associations of banks and financial institutions had asked for the delay, arguing that routing one opt-out to every business unit takes real systems work.

The FCC may change that rule before it bites. In FCC 25-76, adopted October 28 and published December 5, the Commission sought comment on modifying the revoke-all requirement and noted that commenters had asked it to “permit callers to designate the exclusive means by which consumers may revoke prior express consent” instead of honoring every reasonable method. Comments are due January 5, 2026. A proposal isn’t a rule. I wouldn’t build a compliance plan around the FCC finishing a rewrite before April.

Do courts still have to follow the FCC after McLaughlin?

No. In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., decided June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act doesn’t bind district courts in enforcement cases to the FCC’s reading of the TCPA. The Court wrote: “The District Court is not bound by the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA.” Trial courts now read the statute themselves, “affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation,” as the Court put it. Binding appellate precedent still controls them, even where it adopted the FCC’s view. The decision builds on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which ended Chevron deference in June 2024.

That cuts both ways, and businesses should plan for both. FCC readings that stretched the statute, such as treating a text as a call, are now open to challenge in a private suit, at least where no binding appellate decision has already adopted them. FCC readings that helped defendants, like the online-fax ruling McKesson relied on, no longer bind plaintiffs either. I expect more motion practice on questions that used to be settled by an FCC footnote.

Are texts “telephone calls” for Do Not Call claims?

District courts split on it in 2025. No appeals court has decided since Loper Bright whether § 227(c)(5) covers texts, and district courts in the Ninth Circuit have treated a 2009 ruling that a text is a call as binding. The question matters because the Do Not Call private right of action belongs to “A person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity” in violation of the rules, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). Registry claims and quiet-hours claims both run through that provision, and so do claims over ignored do-not-call requests.

In July, a federal court in Illinois dismissed, without prejudice, Registry and internal do-not-call claims centered on texts in Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services, holding that “under a plain reading, Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA does not regulate text messages.” In October, a federal court in San Jose went the other way in Wilson v. MEDVIDI Inc., concluding that “nothing in the text, structure, or purpose of the TCPA suggests the distinction” between written and spoken messages that the defendant urged. It still dismissed that complaint, with leave to amend, because the plaintiff hadn’t adequately tied the texts to the company.

Then came Dilanyan v. Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc. on December 3. The court read the ordinary meaning of a telephone call to exclude a text message. It still denied the motion to dismiss, because it found that the Ninth Circuit’s 2009 decision in Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster “appears to be broad enough to control here.” The court certified its order for a possible interlocutory appeal, which the defendant had to ask the Ninth Circuit to accept, and stayed the case, noting that “the Ninth Circuit has not yet had the opportunity to reexamine Satterfield following the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright.”

Here’s my read. Outside the Ninth Circuit, a company sued only over texts should lead with this argument. Inside it, raise the argument anyway and ask for certification, which is what the defendant did in Dilanyan, according to the order. A text-only Do Not Call case is worth a lot less to a plaintiff while this question is open, and that changes settlement talks.

Why did quiet-hours text claims draw so much attention?

They turn routine marketing schedules into class claims. The rule bars any telephone solicitation to a residential subscriber “before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party’s location),” under § 64.1200(c)(1). In Dilanyan, for example, the complaint alleges at least 289 texts sent outside those hours, according to the court’s order. Those are allegations, accepted as true only for the motion.

An e-commerce trade group and other petitioners pushed back at the FCC. In DA 25-216, released March 11, 2025, the FCC’s consumer bureau sought comment on a petition asking “whether consumers who provide prior express written consent to receive text messages can claim damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for telemarketing text messages received outside the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.” As of this writing, the FCC hasn’t ruled on the petition.

The statute already gives consent-based senders a strong argument. A telephone solicitation excludes a call or message to a person who gave “prior express invitation or permission,” under § 227(a)(4), and the quiet-hours rule reaches only telephone solicitations. The Seventh Circuit also read that definition narrowly in March. In Hulce v. Zipongo Inc., it held that “Foodsmart did not initiate communications with Hulce for the purpose of encouraging someone who makes the purchasing decision to purchase its services.” A company that can prove the subscriber opted in, or that the message wasn’t a sales pitch to the person who pays, has a real defense. The cheaper fix is a send window that stays well inside 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. in the recipient’s time zone.

The year at a glance

A short checklist before January

1. Pull a sample of consent records and confirm each one names your company, shows the number, and carries a signature you can produce. Put call and text logs, platform data, and consent records under a litigation hold the day a claim arrives. Our post on running a privileged compliance audit covers how to structure that review.
2. Test your opt-out handling with all seven standard words and a few plain-language replies, and check the dated logs to confirm suppression lands well inside ten business days.
3. Decide how a STOP sent to one department will reach every other department by April 11, 2026, in case the FCC doesn’t act first.
4. Lock marketing sends to the 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. window in the recipient’s time zone, and record which time zone your platform used for each number.
5. Keep Registry scrub records with the version dates used for each campaign. Our post on the Telemarketing Sales Rule covers the FTC’s recordkeeping rules for the same calls.
6. Review vendor and lead-source contracts, message templates, and any prerecorded or AI-voice files, since consent and vicarious-liability defenses depend on them. Our post on TCPA terms in vendor contracts covers what those contracts should say.
7. Call a lawyer before you answer a demand letter, contact the claimant, or offer anything to settle.

The firm’s page on TCPA litigation defense explains how claims involving quiet-hours texts and texts sent after an opt-out request move from a demand letter to a lawsuit.

Questions businesses are asking at the end of 2025

Is the one-to-one consent rule coming back?

Not as of today. The Eleventh Circuit vacated it, and the FCC removed it from its rules effective August 29, 2025. The FCC’s existing written-consent requirement for marketing robocalls and robotexts still applies, so the practical work hasn’t changed much. Sellers making autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls or texts still need signed agreements that identify them and the phone number, and it pays to be able to produce those agreements quickly when a claim arrives.

When does the revoke-all requirement take effect?

April 11, 2026, under the FCC bureau’s April 2025 waiver, unless the FCC acts before then. The Commission’s October proposal asks whether to modify the requirement and whether callers may designate exclusive opt-out methods. Until the FCC adopts something, companies with several business units or vendors should keep building the plumbing that lets one opt-out stop all of their robocalls and robotexts on unrelated matters.

Can our company still rely on an FCC ruling in a TCPA lawsuit?

You can cite it, but the court doesn’t have to follow it. After McLaughlin, a district court decides what the TCPA means for itself, giving the FCC’s view appropriate respect, unless a binding appellate decision has already settled the question. That helps when an FCC interpretation stretched the statute against you, and it hurts when you were counting on an FCC interpretation to end the case. Treat any defense that rests only on an FCC order as an argument, not a sure thing.

Does a single late-night marketing text create liability?

Usually not by itself. A Do Not Call claim, including a quiet-hours claim, requires more than one telephone call within 12 months from the same entity, and some courts now hold that texts don’t count at all. The statute also gives a defense to companies that implemented reasonable practices and procedures with due care. A pattern of late sends is the real exposure.

Defending TCPA claims heading into 2026

If your company is facing a quiet-hours or Do Not Call claim over marketing texts, the timing logs and consent records you pull this month will shape the defense. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving quiet-hours texts and texts sent after an opt-out request. 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 published in the eCFR through December 15, 2025. The FCC’s August cleanup is in its August 29, 2025 Federal Register notice implementing DA 25-621. The revoke-all waiver is DA 25-312 (Apr. 7, 2025), and the quiet-hours public notice is DA 25-216 (Mar. 11, 2025). The pending proposal is the notice of proposed rulemaking FCC 25-76, 90 Fed. Reg. 56101 (Dec. 5, 2025).

The court decisions are McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025); Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024); Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025); Hulce v. Zipongo Inc., 132 F.4th 493 (7th Cir. 2025); Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01074 (C.D. Ill. July 21, 2025); Wilson v. MEDVIDI Inc., No. 5:25-cv-03996 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2025); and Dilanyan v. Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-05093 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2025).

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