U.S. telemarketing laws are being disrupted thanks to a series of critical court decisions that will very likely affect how contact centers manage contacting and engaging with customers and prospects.
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that federal district courts were no longer bound by administrative interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
In the case, McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., the Supreme Court said that the Administrative Order Review Act, known as the Hobbs Act, provides for pre-enforcement judicial review of FCC orders.
The Supreme Court noted that statutes such as the Clean Water Act, CERCLA, and the Clean Air Act do “expressly preclude judicial review in enforcement proceedings”.
Then, on July 8, 2025, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s “click-to-cancel” rules. And, on July 21, 2025, the Central District of Illinois ruled that the TCPA’s National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry and Internal Do Not Call list regulations do not apply to SMS/text (see “Fewer Limits on Text Marketing?” below).
So where does this leave contact centers? And what should they do now? We interviewed Melody Morehouse, who is Director, Conversation Compliance, Gryphon AI. We also heard from Paul St. Clair, J.D., who is Head of Compliance, Convoso (see BOX).
MELODY MOREHOUSE
Director
Conversation Compliance
Gryphon AI
Here is our conversation with Melody on the Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rulings:
Q. What are the impacts of the Supreme Court’s TCPA decision on contact centers? Is it correct to assert there is now uncertainty as to complying with them?
While the FCC’s past interpretations of statutes like the TCPA haven’t been flawless, they offered a familiar and reasonably stable framework for call centers to build their operational and compliance policies around.
The true impact of the June Supreme Court decision remains to be seen. Legislatures make the laws and courts interpret them, clarifying their meaning and scope, which, in turn, shapes how businesses must actually comply.
The judicial ripple effects from the June ruling are still unfolding, but it’s likely only a matter of time; concerns about “how to comply” amid this uncertainty are entirely valid.
Q. What sections of the TCPA do you expect to be challenged and why?
A core tenet of the TCPA’s do not call provisions - whether cell phones qualify as “residential telephone lines”- has already been challenged. This distinction is critical since calling times, Do Not Call Registry protections, and wireless phone requirements all hinge on it, making it a prime target for serial litigators.
In Wilson v. Hard Eight Nutrition, LLC, the Oregon District Court, empowered by McKesson, independently interpreted the statute without deferring to the FCC, ultimately reaching the same conclusion as the FCC and denied the motion to dismiss.
The court held that a cell phone is presumptively considered a residential telephone under the TCPA’s DNC section, aligning with the FCC’s longstanding position. This ruling sets an important early post-McKesson benchmark but leaves open the possibility that other courts might take a different view moving forward.
I predict the FCC’s new consent revocation rules effective April 2025 are fair game for challenges post-McKesson: especially around what counts as a “reasonable” time to act on unsubscribe or opt-out requests.
“...McKesson redraws the lines but doesn't let telemarketers run amok.” —Melody Morehouse
The latest TCPA rules set that “reasonable” means processing requests as soon as possible but no later than 10 business days from receipt. Marketers could gain from courts weighing in on how - and how strictly - that “reasonable” timeline plays out in practice.
The TCPA’s calling time restrictions - an emerging litigation battleground, especially around texts sent during “quiet hours”- are ripe for post-McKesson challenges.
Even before McKesson, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) took on the FCC in this petition, arguing that demand response communications shouldn’t require prior consent and thus should be exempt from quiet hour limits. EEI prevailed; the FCC issued this declaratory ruling on June 9, 2025.
Meanwhile, the Ecommerce Innovation Alliance (EIA) asked the FCC to clarify how to determine the “local time at the called party’s location” for TCPA Quiet Hours compliance, proposing a non-rebuttable presumption that a mobile number’s area code reflects the user’s time zone.
That decision remains pending [at presstime]. Quiet hours challenges were already in open season; McKesson just brings them into sharper focus.
Q. What are you hearing about FCC TCPA enforcement? Is it now gun-shy? Are you also seeing any reluctance by the FTC to enforce the TSR?
Both agencies remain active. But there’s a clear sense of caution as they adjust to new legal realities.
The FCC is continuing to enforce the TCPA, but its approach is more measured. With some recent rules temporarily sidelined by the courts and the Supreme Court affirming district court independence, it is focusing on clear-cut violations rather than pushing regulatory boundaries: while legal interpretations around consent and revocation remain unsettled.
The FTC, regarding the TSR, appears restrained. While it continues to act against egregious violators, broader enforcement initiatives are on hold as litigation over its authority plays out.
This period of uncertainty means few are eager to test the limits or set new precedents that might further restrict agency power.
For example, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in vacating the click-to-cancel rules, cited the agency’s failure to comply with required preliminary regulatory analysis, quashing opportunity for public comment.
As a result, the nationwide mandate compelling businesses to offer consumers a straightforward online cancellation button is off the table, at least for now.
Other legal challenges to the TSR are likely ahead. The same pattern seen with the TCPA - industry resistance, judicial intervention, and agencies adjusting course - is expected to shape the TSR’s future, especially as technology evolves and consumer concerns persist.
Organizations should closely monitor developments, as evolving interpretations may bring these issues to the Supreme Court in time.
Q. Does the Supreme Court’s decision open the door to aggressive telemarketers and fraudsters?
The Supreme Court’s McKesson ruling isn’t a free pass for aggressive telemarketers or scammers, despite shaking up the TCPA landscape. District courts now call the shots on interpreting the law, instead of blindly following FCC interpretations.
This means telemarketers can’t just hide behind FCC rules. They have to face courts evaluating TCPA compliance on the statute’s actual text and intent. It’s a double-edged sword: plaintiffs gain new ways to challenge shady telemarketing practices, while defendants face more uncertainty and possible headaches across jurisdictions.
So yes, the decision injects more complexity and risk, but it doesn’t weaken consumer protections or throw the door wide open for fraud. The FCC still retains full authority to enforce the TCPA and keep bad actors in check, wielding broad regulatory and enforcement oversight.
Expect a wave of litigation in district courts as definitions and rules get hashed out case by case. Compliance demands better documentation and solid legal strategies because there’s no more one-size-fits-all agency shield.
Bottom line: McKesson redraws the lines but doesn’t let telemarketers run amok. It signals a more cautious, court-driven enforcement era: not a regulatory free-for-all.
Other Reaction: Convoso
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the TCPA appears to touch almost every organization that reaches out to customers, like through their contact centers. Paul St. Clair, J.D., who is Head of Compliance, Convoso, has offered his reactions to the decision and on what may happen next.
On the impacts of the Supreme Court’s decision on the TCPA and compliance.
It’s too early to tell, but there is uncertainty where there used to be “bright line” rules and clear guidance from the FCC at the federal level. This will require a more state-specific approach to business and compliance practices.
On expected TCPA challenges.
It may be that the FCC’s prior express written consent interpretation - and particularly the written aspect - is challenged. Also, although the one-to-one consent rule was vacated in January 2025, jurisdictions may develop differing views on how many different entities a consumer can give their consent to in a single forum.
“...the uncertainty...offers a good opportunity for contact centers to reevaluate their compliance strategy...”
—Paul St. Clair
FCC enforcement and the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule.
Never bet against the house. Government and law enforcement are increasing their efforts, if anything, in light of the continued desire for oversight and regulation of this space by consumers and considering the Supreme Court decision.
Are the doors open to aggressive telemarketers and fraudsters?
No, the uncertainty should give any organization pause, and it offers a good opportunity for contact centers to reevaluate their compliance strategy as well as [their] jurisdictional strategy.
That is, some states may become significantly more burdensome in terms of compliance than others. You see that already with Utah’s telemarketer regulations and states with their own “mini-TCPAs,” but that will just get exaggerated over time in the wake of McLaughlin [McKesson].
As is always true, however, the law is open to interpretation and industry participants are always seeking that competitive edge.
Will Congress, states step in?
It is way more likely that states will step in. This issue is still championed by a few at the federal level, but state legislative sessions across the country for the last several years have consistently produced bipartisan telemarketing regulations and I expect this trend to continue.
Q. Telemarketing regulations have long had strong bipartisan advocacy at the federal and state levels; consumers and businesses don’t like to be bothered, let alone face fraud. But do you think Congress will step in to act, like amending the TCPA to preclude judicial review? Do you foresee individual states taking action?
After the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that overturned Chevron deference, Justice Brett Kavanaugh described the decision as a “course correction” intended to restore the balance of powers and ensure that the executive branch acts within the authority granted by Congress.
Kavanaugh emphasized that the ruling does not mean judges should overreach but that it safeguards the judiciary’s role in independently interpreting statutes rather than deferring automatically to agencies.
In this way, Kavanaugh’s statements after the Chevron overruling echoed the McKesson ruling’s emphasis that agencies enforce laws, but the judicial branch retains the ultimate authority to interpret and “make the law” through independent statutory interpretation. As a result, I do not believe Congress will step in to amend the TCPA to preclude judicial review.
On a different matter, congressional lawmakers have already stepped in following the Eighth Circuit’s click-to-cancel decision. House and Senate Democrats have introduced The Click to Cancel Act of 2025, seeking to codify the rule (H.R. 4819, S.2254).
States will always be part of the equation with telemarketing-specific legislation. The more agile states will continue to identify gaps in federal regulations and cover them in their own statutes in the interests of their constituents. They will continue expanding their typically more restrictive regulatory frameworks even if Congress delays or does not amend the TCPA to preclude judicial review.
This has already been happening with the TSR. For example, Pennsylvania lawmakers have been working on the state’s own version of the click-to-cancel legislation.
Pennsylvania’s proactive stance shows that, while federal action may be stalled, the momentum for consumer-friendly subscription laws continues at the state level, offering clarity for residents and a signal for national policy debates.
Q. So, is it correct to assume that the Supreme Court has tossed the TCPA back to the district courts? If so, do you believe the challenges to the law will end up at the Supreme Court for it to decide on the legality of sections, indeed, possibly, the whole of the TCPA? The TSR?
Yes, that’s exactly what happened: the Supreme Court returned interpretative authority over the TCPA to district courts rather than requiring automatic deference to the FCC.
The Supreme Court has already shown interest in clarifying the role and scope of agency authority versus judicial interpretation in this space (e.g., Chevron deference overruling and now the McKesson decision).
Therefore, given the intense litigation environment, further Supreme Court review can be expected to address unresolved or emerging disputes about the lawfulness and application of TCPA and TSR provisions.
Q. What is your advice to contact centers in navigating the TCPA and the TSR?
Contact centers have plenty on their plates, but prioritizing consent can make a significant difference. At the same time, staying grounded in the fundamentals will continue to ensure a stable foundation for compliance.
Focus on consent. Consent is king. Not just a regulatory gold mine (provable, documented prior express written consent overrides nearly all TCPA restrictions on telemarketing and automated calls or texts). But also the foundation for greater customer trust, stronger engagement, lasting loyalty, and a meaningful boost to ROI.
Document everything. Keep meticulous records of consumer consent and use advanced tools to manage consent and autodialer compliance, since legal standards are increasingly case-specific (See the FTC’s Final Rule [as part of the TSR] regarding recordkeeping requirements).
Establish faster and expanded opt-out processing. Call centers must now honor consumer opt-out requests within 10 business days (reduced from 30) and accept revocations by any “reasonable” method: verbal, text, email, web form, or otherwise.
Businesses cannot restrict revocation to exclusive methods. This 10-business-day timeframe for phone and text opt-outs now aligns with the FTC’s longstanding CAN-SPAM email requirement.
Look ahead - cross-channel opt-out deferral. The cross-channel opt-out rule (honoring opt-outs for phone and text across all communication types, e.g., marketing, informational, content-specific, etc.) was delayed to April 2026. This gives call centers an additional year to adapt systems for this significant change, so be ready.
(Note: a request to eliminate the “revoke all” has been brought forward by debt collectors, led by ACA International.)
Stay flexible. Build compliance protocols that can adapt quickly to new court rulings and regulatory changes to avoid costly overhauls.
Watch legal trends. Regularly monitor lawsuits, judicial rulings, and regulatory updates to stay ahead of shifting interpretations in TCPA and TSR enforcement.
Work closely with legal counsel. Frequently consult specialized lawyers to get timely, expert advice on compliance and minimize risk in this evolving landscape.
Prepare for FTC impacts. Proactively adjust policies to meet future consent and cancellation expectations to stay ahead.
Fewer Limits on Text Marketing?
By Brendan Read, Contact Center Pipeline; Q&A with Melody Morehouse, Gryphon AI
Will organizations be free to ignore customers’ wishes not to be contacted by SMS/text in U.S. telemarketing legislation like the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)?
This could be the outcome stemming from a ruling by the Central District of Illinois in Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services LLC on July 21, 2025, that the TCPA’s National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry and internal Do Not Call list regulations do not apply to SMS/text.
The Central District’s action follows on the heels of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court McKesson decision on the TCPA (see Supreme Telemarketing Changes article above). Indeed, that court cited it in its reasoning, namely that district courts were not bound by agencies’ interpretations of laws.
In the case, the plaintiffs alleged that Blackstone was sending them messages, even though they were on the DNC registry and that they had asked Blackstone to stop.
The Central District said that the Jones plaintiffs cited FCC rulings that were made in 2003 and 2016 to support their claim. But it disagreed with their assertion, and said that SMS/text messaging were absent from the specific sections of the TCPA they sought relief from.
Melody Morehouse, Director, Conversation Compliance, Gryphon AI, said the Central District dismissed the Jones case after concluding that text messages did not trigger TCPA claims because the phrases “SMS message” and “text message” were absent from those sections of the regulations.
“With no statutory definition for ’telephone call,’ the court drew upon the common and ordinary meaning of the term and concluded that, to cite its wording: ‘[I]n today’s American parlance, telephone call means something entirely different from text message’,” says Melody.
In following up with Melody, we asked her three questions:
Q. So, is the Jones case an example of what may be the growing court practice of literal or “plain language” reading of legislation and regulations, where if a specific practice is not mentioned it does not apply, as opposed to a reading of the intent of these laws?
Namely that lawmakers wanted to stop consumers from receiving unwanted communications from marketers. Thus, leaving it then to lawmakers to make any changes to these laws?
YES, you nailed it. The “intent” (mainly to protect consumers from unwanted marketing messages) was often shaped by extensive FCC “interpretation,” (generally based on industry expertise). Now, courts can apply rulings based solely on the literal black and white words on the page instead.
Q. How do you believe marketers, and contact centers, are going to act post-Jones? Will they now contact customers by SMS/text regardless but at the risk of irritating them and resulting in loss of sales from incurring negative brand perceptions? Or will they be prudent and respect those lists?
I can’t predict how marketers are going to respond, but if they are ethical and prudent, they will respect the new boundaries that support and enforce consumer expectations.
I always say “consent is king” for a reason: it truly is the golden key to navigating challenges in the TCPA space. It’s not always easy, but companies can tackle tough issues, especially when the outcome boosts consumer trust and improves the bottom line.
Q. Do you expect Congress or the states to step in to amend their telemarketing regulations to put in language that includes those channels in the DNC lists and registries?
In 2024, there was a clear state-level trend to explicitly include “text messages” within their telemarketing statutes, alongside phone calls. I expect that trend to continue, as states generally won’t retreat from such consumer protections. In fact, state rules tend to be more rigorous than federal rules anyway, so this state-level momentum is likely to persist.
The Jones v. Blackstone TCPA ruling creates legal uncertainty for the FCC’s TCPA-specific private actions regarding text messages and the National DNC Registry. But from what I can tell, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s national rule and enforcement posture remain unchanged: the DNC protections continue to include text/SMS marketing to numbers on the Registry.
It would be risky for businesses to rely on the Jones ruling as a shield for FTC DNC Registry compliance. So, I’d recommend they proceed under the assumption that marketing texts to numbers on the National DNC Registry constitute a violation, unless a clear exemption applies (such as prior consent or an established business relationship).
Given the growing regulatory and legal uncertainty, split court decisions suggest that only new legislation from Congress can provide consistent national clarity on the coverage of text and other digital marketing channels under the DNC framework.
Until such federal legislation is enacted, the primary progress toward explicitly including digital messaging in telemarketing and DNC laws continues at the state legislative level, alongside FCC administrative actions.