Robocalls and consent after 2025: what the FCC and the courts changed
Since April 11, 2025, the FCC's rules say that if you revoke consent to autodialed or prerecorded calls and texts by any reasonable method, the caller must stop. In January 2025 the Eleventh Circuit struck a separate FCC consent rule for telemarketers, and in June 2025 the Supreme Court held that judges, not the FCC, decide what the TCPA means. For collection robocalls to your cell phone, the core rule stands: no consent, no robocall.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act is the law behind most robocall lawsuits. It bars calls to a cell phone made with an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice without the called party's prior express consent (47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)), and it gives the person called $500 per violation, up to $1,500 if the violation was willful or knowing (§ 227(b)(3)). The TCPA has no fee-shifting clause.
Three things happened in 2025 that change how consent works and who decides what the statute means. A fourth, in January 2026, pushed one piece of the FCC's rule into 2027.
April 11, 2025: revoke consent any reasonable way
On February 16, 2024, the FCC adopted an order on revoking consent to robocalls and robotexts. The Federal Register announced an effective date of April 11, 2025. Under the rule, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10), if a called party uses any reasonable method to revoke consent, the consent is considered definitively revoked, and the caller may not send more robocalls or robotexts unless an exemption applies.
For a consumer getting prerecorded collection calls, that matters in a concrete way. If a caller relies on consent you gave at some point in the past, you can end it, and the rule does not require a particular form or phrase, only a reasonable method.
One piece is delayed to 2027
Part of the rule says a stop request made in reply to one type of informational message applies to all future robocalls and robotexts from that caller on unrelated matters. The FCC waived that part until April 11, 2026, and on January 6, 2026 extended the waiver to January 31, 2027 while it considers changes (FCC Order DA 26-12). Until then, if you want every kind of call to stop, say so clearly and in writing.
January 24, 2025: the one-to-one consent rule is struck
In 2023 the FCC adopted a rule for telemarketing and advertising robocalls: consent had to be given to one seller at a time, and the calls had to be logically and topically related to the interaction that prompted the consent.
On January 24, 2025, one business day before the rule was to take effect, the Eleventh Circuit vacated it in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277. The court held that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority by adding restrictions to the phrase "prior express consent" that conflict with its ordinary meaning. It vacated that part of the 2023 order and remanded.
That ruling concerned telemarketing consent. Debt collection calls are not telemarketing, and the basic statutory rule for them did not move: a collector or creditor still needs prior express consent to robocall your cell phone.
June 20, 2025: courts decide what the TCPA means
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-1226, began as a case about fax advertisements. A district court treated an FCC order, which said online fax services are not "telephone facsimile machines," as binding and cut the class down to 12 faxes received on traditional machines. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court reversed, 6 to 3. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the Court that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in enforcement proceedings to an agency's interpretation of a statute. District courts must determine the law's meaning themselves under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, "while affording appropriate respect to the agency's interpretation." Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.
In practice, FCC orders interpreting the TCPA are now persuasive, not controlling, in private TCPA suits. Callers can argue that an FCC ruling that went against them misreads the statute. Consumers can make the same argument about FCC rulings that favored callers. The statute's words, like "prior express consent" and "automatic telephone dialing system," carry more weight than ever. On that second phrase, the Supreme Court held in 2021 that an autodialer must use a random or sequential number generator (Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021)), which is why many collection robocall cases now turn on a prerecorded or artificial voice.
What this means if a collector is robocalling you
- Revoke consent, and keep proof. Say it on the call if you want, then send it in writing. Note the date. Calls after that date are the ones that matter.
- Save the voicemails. A prerecorded or artificial voice message is often the clearest evidence that the TCPA applies.
- Log every call. Date, time, number, and whether a recording played. The call log also flags calls that exceed the Regulation F seven-in-seven presumption, which counts telephone calls only.
- Use the FDCPA too. If the caller is a debt collector, a written request to stop communicating requires it to stop, with narrow exceptions (15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c)). The FDCPA provides statutory damages of up to $1,000 and requires a collector found liable to pay the consumer's reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The TCPA does not shift fees, so the two laws often travel together.
- Mind the deadlines. One year for an FDCPA claim. The TCPA's four-year period comes from the federal catch-all statute.
In Florida, the FCCPA separately limits communications between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m.; since May 16, 2025 that rule does not cover email. In New York City, collectors are limited to three contacts per account per week across calls, texts and email since September 1, 2026. See Florida, New York and New Jersey.
The TCPA
Consent, autodialers, prerecorded voices and damages.
Read →Robocalls and texts
When automated collection calls and texts cross the line.
Read →All news
Every dated change since 2024, with sources.
Read →Sources: FCC, Order DA 26-12 (Jan. 6, 2026) (PDF), describing the TCPA Consent Order, 39 FCC Rcd 1988 (2024), and the 2025 Waiver Order; Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025) (opinion); McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. ___ (2025) (opinion); Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021); 47 U.S.C. § 227(b); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c(c), 1692k; 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a); Fla. Stat. § 559.72(17).
Common questions
How do I revoke consent to robocalls from a collector or lender?
Under the FCC's rules in effect since April 11, 2025, revoking consent by any reasonable method counts. Tell the caller clearly that you do not want more calls, and put it in writing as well, so you can prove the date. If the caller is a debt collector, a written request to stop communicating also triggers the FDCPA's cease-communication rule.
Does the TCPA make the caller pay my lawyer?
No. The TCPA provides $500 per violation, up to $1,500 if the violation was willful or knowing, but it has no fee-shifting clause. The FDCPA and the FCRA do require a company found liable to pay the consumer's reasonable attorney's fees and costs, which is why collection robocall cases often involve more than one law.
Did the Supreme Court's McLaughlin decision weaken the TCPA?
It changed who has the last word on the statute's meaning. District courts in TCPA cases now decide for themselves what the law means, giving the FCC's view appropriate respect rather than treating it as binding. That can help or hurt either side, depending on the FCC ruling at issue.
Tell us what they did.
One conversation with an attorney, in your language. We tell you which laws the collector or the credit bureau broke, which deadline runs first, and what to save this week. If it is not a case we can take, we say so and tell you where to go.
(718) 484-7510The FDCPA and the FCRA require a company found liable to pay the consumer’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Our fee arrangement is confirmed in a written retainer before we begin. English, Russian and Spanish in-house; an interpreter for any other language.