Wireless carriers and cable and internet providers face TCPA exposure from two directions: their own upgrade and winback campaigns, and the calls made by authorized dealers that sell their service. The second is often the bigger risk. One of the best-known TCPA verdicts involved a satellite TV provider held liable for a retailer’s Do Not Call calls, with the damages trebled. Providers that control how dealers market, and that keep winback lists inside the established business relationship windows, can defend most of these claims on the records.
Do the telemarketing rules apply to telecom providers?
Yes, the TCPA does. The statute’s restrictions apply to “any person within the United States,” under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). Telecom companies sometimes assume a different answer because the FTC’s general authority under 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2) excludes “common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce.” That carve-out limits the FTC. It doesn’t change the TCPA, which the FCC enforces and private plaintiffs sue under, and which covers carriers and non-carriers alike.
Can a provider call former customers to win them back?
Within limits. The Do Not Call rules cover telephone solicitations, and under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(15) that term excludes a call “To any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship.” The relationship is based on a purchase or transaction “within the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding the date of the telephone call,” or an inquiry or application within three months.
Winback programs strain both limits. A customer who canceled two years ago, or a prospect who asked for a quote last summer, is outside the windows, and a Registry number in either group can’t be called on the relationship. A former customer’s request to stop sales calls also ends the relationship “even if the subscriber continues to do business with the seller,” under § 64.1200(f)(5)(i). Providers that build winback lists from billing systems should filter on the date of the last transaction and on internal do-not-call flags, and the post on the 31-day Registry scrub rule covers the scrub side.
Is a provider liable for its dealers’ telemarketing?
It can be. In Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (4th Cir. 2019) 925 F.3d 643, a jury found that a retailer marketing the company’s satellite service was acting as the company’s agent when it called numbers on the Registry. The Fourth Circuit affirmed and wrote that “By its plain language, the TCPA’s private right of action contemplates that a company can be held liable for calls made on its behalf, even if not placed by the company directly.”
The contract didn’t protect the provider. The court said the terms of an agreement “will remain highly relevant,” but added that “If the parties want the benefits of an independent contractor relationship, they have to actually have one.” It concluded that the company “wanted to exercise extensive control over SSN’s conduct without taking on responsibility for that conduct, and that is what the law does not permit.” The trebling side of Krakauer is covered in the post on willful or knowing violations and treble damages.
For providers, the lesson cuts both ways. Control over dealers’ sales methods supports an agency finding, and ignoring complaints about dealers supports a knowledge finding. A dealer program with clear marketing rules, real monitoring, and termination when rules are broken is easier to defend than one that leaves dealers alone or one that directs their scripts without checking their lists.
| Exposure | Rule or case | Key fact | Defense evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upgrade calls to current customers on the Registry | § 64.1200(f)(15)(ii) | Transaction in the last 18 months, no stop request | Billing dates and do-not-call flags |
| Winback calls to former customers | § 64.1200(f)(5) | Time since last transaction or inquiry | List-building criteria and scrub records |
| Authorized dealer calls | Krakauer (agency) | Control and knowledge | Dealer rules, monitoring, terminations |
| Using account data to target offers | 47 U.S.C. § 222, § 64.2005 | Customer approval for some uses | CPNI approval records |
Can a carrier use account data to target marketing?
Sometimes, and that question sits under a separate statute. 47 U.S.C. § 222(c)(1) says that, “Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer,” a telecommunications carrier may use customer proprietary network information only in providing the service it came from and related services. The FCC’s rule at 47 C.F.R. § 64.2005 lets a carrier use that information to market offerings within the categories of service the customer “already subscribes” to without approval, but not to market service in a category the customer doesn’t already buy, “unless that carrier has customer approval to do so.”
The CPNI rules don’t create TCPA claims, but they show up in TCPA cases. A plaintiff who learns a marketing list was built from call-detail data may use that fact to argue the campaign was careless, and it can draw regulator attention apart from any lawsuit. Telecom marketing teams should know which lists rely on CPNI and what approval supports them. The practical fix is to tag each campaign list with its data sources when it’s built, so the company can answer that question in a week instead of reconstructing it months into a lawsuit, after the people who built the list have moved on.
How do providers handle marketing texts to subscribers?
The same way other sellers do, with one extra check on cost. If a marketing text is sent through an autodialer or with a prerecorded voice to a cell phone, it needs prior express written consent under § 64.1200(a)(2). The statute also lets the FCC exempt calls to cell phones “that are not charged to the called party,” under § 227(b)(2)(C), but the FCC’s existing exemptions in § 64.1200(a)(9) are limited to specific message types such as package delivery, fraud alerts, and healthcare messages. A carrier’s own marketing to its subscribers isn’t on that list, even when the carrier doesn’t charge for the text.
Wireless carriers also sit on both sides of texting rules, since they enforce carrier messaging policies against other senders. That doesn’t change their own obligations. When a provider faces a claim, TCPA defense lawyers usually look first at whether the messages were marketing at all, then at consent and the customer relationship.
Records to pull when a subscriber sues over sales calls
- Preserve call and text logs, dialer and messaging-platform data, and consent records for the numbers involved, under a litigation hold, including dealer call data.
- Pull opt-out and internal do-not-call logs with dates, including requests made in stores or to customer care.
- Pull the National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and Registry version dates used by the company and each dealer.
- Collect dealer and vendor agreements, marketing rules and scripts, complaint records, and any prerecorded or AI-voice files.
- Talk to a lawyer before responding to the demand, contacting the subscriber, or offering a bill credit to settle.
Questions telecom marketers ask about the TCPA
Is a text about a plan change a marketing message?
It depends on the content. A notice of a change to the customer’s existing plan, such as a price change or a policy update, is informational. A message that offers an upgrade, a new line, or a bundle encourages a purchase and fits the telemarketing definition. Mixed messages should be treated as marketing.
Does a customer’s request at a retail store count as a do-not-call request?
It should be treated as one. The internal do-not-call rules require a seller to honor a consumer’s request not to receive calls, and a request made at a store or through customer care is still a request to the company. Providers should make sure every channel feeds the same do-not-call list, since a missed store request is hard to defend.
Can a provider rely on a dealer’s promise to scrub against the Registry?
Not by itself. Krakauer shows that contract language doesn’t decide the case if the provider had reason to know the dealer wasn’t complying. A provider should require scrub records, audit them, and act on complaints. Those steps support the defense that the dealer wasn’t acting on the provider’s behalf when it broke the rules.
Do these rules apply to fiber and fixed wireless startups?
Yes. The TCPA applies to any company marketing by phone or text, whatever its size or technology. Smaller providers that rely on door-to-door and phone sales through independent contractors should look closely at the agency issues in Krakauer, since those contractors are often the ones placing calls.
Defending a provider against TCPA claims
If your company has been sued over upgrade calls, winback calls, or a dealer’s telemarketing, the customer relationship dates and the dealer program records usually decide where liability falls. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving dealer telemarketing to Registry numbers. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statutes are the Telephone Consumer Protection Act at 47 U.S.C. § 227, 47 U.S.C. § 222, and the Federal Trade Commission Act at 15 U.S.C. § 45. The FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 and 47 C.F.R. § 64.2005.
The court decision is Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (4th Cir. 2019) 925 F.3d 643.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of April 16, 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.