Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

By the Commission: Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioner Gomez issuing separate statements.

I. INTRODUCTION

the prior express consent of the called party or a recognized exemption.

consent after deciding they no longer want robocalls or robotexts is essential to the right of consent. Over

many years, the Commission has addressed consent and revocation. Here we take steps both to establish

new consent protections and to make explicit those protections the Commission failed to codify in the

past. More specifically, we strengthen consumers’ ability to revoke consent so that it is simple and easy,

codify previously adopted protections that make it simpler for consumers to revoke consent, and require

an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called

party” unless a statutory exception applies or the call is “exempted by rule or order by the Commission

under [section 227(b)(2)(B)].”

The TCPA also prohibits, without the prior express consent of the called

1

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394 (1991), codified at 47 U.S.C.

§ 227. The TCPA does not define prior express consent or otherwise provide guidance relating to how consumers

may provide or revoke consent to receive robocalls. The TCPA excepts from this prohibition calls made for

emergency purposes. The Commission has also exercised its statutory authority to adopt certain exemptions from

this prohibition. See 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(3), (9).

consistent with the definition of a “call”).

3

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B). In the case of robocalls that introduce an advertisement or contain telemarketing, the

Commission’s rules require that the caller obtain the prior express written consent of the called party. See 47 CFR

§ 64.1200(a)(2), (3).

party, any non-emergency call made using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or

autodialed or artificial or prerecorded voice calls to those subscribers.

5

In 2019, two petitioners sought a

ruling that wireless subscribers can stop robocalls and robotexts from their wireless service provider by

making a request to their service provider to halt these communications.

message confirming a consumer’s request that no further text messages be sent from that sender does not

violate the TCPA if the confirmation text complies with certain limitations, including that it not contain

any marketing.

7

In 2019, Capital One filed a petition requesting a declaratory ruling that, if a consumer

provided prior express consent to receive autodialed or prerecorded calls may revoke such consent

through any reasonable means.

10

Citing prior Commission rulings and the “well-established common law

right to revoke prior consent,” the Commission concluded that the most reasonable interpretation of “prior

4

See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

5

See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protect Act of 1991, CC Docket No. 92-90,

revocation requests immediately”) (Cranor Petition); Petition of Paul Armbruster for Declaratory Ruling Or

Messages From Common Carriers, CG Docket No. 02-278 (filed July 9, 2019) (requesting confirmation that a

cellular phone customer can revoke consent to receive any and all unwanted text messages from their cell service

provider) (Armbruster Petition).

7

See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Soundbite

Communications, Inc., CG Docket No. 02-278, Declaratory Ruling, 27 FCC Rcd 15391, 15394, para. 7 (2012)

(Soundbite Declaratory Ruling or Soundbite).

8

violating the [TCPA] or related Commission rules”) (Capital One Petition).

9

Id. at 4.

10

278, WC Docket No. 07-135, Declaratory Ruling and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 7961, 7993-99, paras. 55-70 (2015) (2015

TCPA Declaratory Ruling).

express consent” in light of the TCPA’s consumer protection goals is “to permit a right of revocation.”

12

the consumer may revoke consent by replying “STOP”) by which a consumer may revoke prior express

consent to be texted.

14

Rulemaking

15

that proposed to amend our rules to: 1) strengthen the right of revocation by specifying

reasonable methods to revoke while codifying the underlying right to revoke by any reasonable means;

16

2) require that, within 24 hours of receipt, callers must honor company-specific do-not-call and revocation

of consent requests for robocalls and robotexts that are subject to the TCPA; 3) codify the Commission’s

revoke consent to robocalls and robotexts that they do not wish to receive in a timely manner by codifying

11

with the Recipient’s Prior Express Permission, CG Docket No. 02-278, 05-338, Order, 29 FCC Rcd 13998 (2014)

(Anda Order); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 892A, cmt. i. (1979) (“consent is terminated when the actor knows

or has reason to know that the other is no longer willing for him to continue the particular conduct”)).

12

16

18

wireless providers to subject such calls to certain conditions pursuant to an exemption that protects the privacy

interests of subscribers.

those obligations into the Commission’s rules.

Several commenters, however, take issue with the

“cancel,” or “unsubscribe” via reply text message constitutes a per se reasonable means to revoke

opportunity to explain why the consumer’s use of alternative words or phrases does not constitute a

such disclosures will need to be succinct to avoid unduly infringing on the sender’s ability to

communicate using a text message.

25

consumer attempts revocation in that language using its equivalent of these words, the finder of fact may conclude

the revocation attempt is reasonable under a totality of the circumstances analysis.

26

process opt-out requests made via a reply text message. See, e.g. ABA Comments at 13; EEI Comments at 12; MEF

Comments at 3; PACE Comments at 4; Vibes Comments at 6; ZipDX Comments 3.

https://api.ctia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/05/230523-CTIA-Messaging-Principles-and-Best-Practices-FINAL.pdf.

30

31

not require a party transmitting a text message to create or make available to consumers a specific or particular

method (such as bilateral text messaging) by which a consumer may revoke prior express consent. In addition, we

further codify the sender’s obligations when the text initiator chooses not to use a text protocol that allows for reply

texts. As a result, we dismiss this petition as moot because we have essentially resolved any uncertainty or

controversies raised in that petition pursuant to the rules adopted herein.

inconsistent with the consumer privacy protections afforded under the TCPA.

34

In addition, the

clarifications set forth herein ensure that consumers have the ability to easily exercise their right to revoke

consent while providing callers with a reasonable opportunity to process such requests made in any

reasonable way. For example, as discussed below, when the consumer chooses to use a method that has

not been designated by the caller to process revocation requests, the caller will have an opportunity to

prove why the method used is not reasonable.

revoke consent, such as those made by voicemail or email to any telephone number or address at which

a method to revoke consent, doing so creates a rebuttable presumption that the consumer has revoked

analysis will determine whether the caller can demonstrate that a request to revoke consent has not been

conveyed in a reasonable manner.

35

We disagree with commenters who argue this approach is

inconsistent with consumers’ right to revoke by any reasonable means.

36

ascertain whether a consumer has used a reasonable method to revoke consent when the consumer has

used a method of their own choosing rather than one established by the calling or texting entity.

solicitations” to telephone numbers registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry unless the caller has

32

litigation.

34

requires the consumer to fax his or her revocation to the caller, perhaps with additional conditions as to the content

of such a revocation, such conditions materially diminish the consumer’s ability to revoke by imposing additional

burdens—especially if disclosure of such conditions is not clear and conspicuous, and not repeated to the consumer

with each message.

35

receive any more texts” is not a reasonable means to revoke consent because it cannot be read by automated

obtained the “prior express invitation or permission” of the called party, in writing.

At the request of

desire not to receive further calls” to invoke this right to revoke consent.

specific do-not-call and revocation-of-consent requests for robocalls and robotexts that are subject to the

TCPA within a specific timeframe. Specifically, we amend our rules to require that callers honor

company-specific do-not-call and revocation-of-consent requests within a reasonable time from the date

that the request is made, not to exceed 10 business days after receipt of the request.

40

messages days or even weeks following a request to stop such communications. Such delays also

undermine a consumer’s right to determine which robocalls and robotexts they wish to receive under the

privacy protections afforded by the TCPA. In addition, advances in technology over the years, including

manner and reserve the right to adjust this timeframe as necessary in the future as technologies continue

to advance, and thereby further reduce the time necessary to process such requests after notice and

comment.

proposed 24-hour timeframe would not be feasible in many instances.

42

including comments from consumer organizations, that a longer timeframe is justified to ensure that

entities, including smaller entities, have a reasonable opportunity to process do-not-call and revocation

requests.

40

41

42

16 (10 business days); EEI Comments at 15 (10 business days): NAMIC Comments at 3 (not to exceed 14 business

days); NTCA et al. Comments at 5 (72 hours); PACE Comments at 7 (five business days): UHG Comments at 3 (14

days).

under our CAN-SPAM rules.

of-consent requests for robocalls and robotexts made to residential or wireless telephone numbers. The

Commission’s rules currently require callers making telemarketing calls or exempted artificial and

wireless consumers to honor do-not-call requests within a reasonable time not to exceed 30 days from the

45

period allowed for honoring the revocation requests of consumers while allowing callers a reasonable

will continue to monitor these advances to ensure that consumers receive the full benefits of these

package delivery calls to substantially reduce the 30-day timeframe to process such requests allowed in

our current rules.

Specifically, we amend the exemption that allows package delivery notification

robocalls and robotexts without consent to require that opt-out requests be honored within a reasonable

1. Confirmation of Revocation Request

Declaratory Ruling which clarified that a one-time text message confirming a consumer’s request that no

further text messages be sent does not violate the TCPA or the Commission’s rules as long as the

confirmation text merely confirms the called party’s opt-out request and does not include any marketing

or promotional information, and the text is the only additional message sent to the called party after

receipt of the opt-out request.

Consistent with the Soundbite Declaratory Ruling, if the confirmation

text is sent within five minutes of receipt, it will be presumed to fall within the consumer’s prior express

48

consent.

If it takes longer, however, the sender will have to make a showing that such delay was

has consented to receive multiple types of informational messages from a sender then revokes consent, the sender

can inform the consumer of the scope of the revocation in a one-time message without violating the TCPA. As a

result, we dismiss this petition as moot because we have essentially resolved any uncertainty or controversies raised

55

communications. Although many of the messages sent by wireless providers to their own subscribers

proposal and any other issues commenters may wish to raise in this context, including any alternative

of our rules to require an automated opt-out mechanism on every call that contains an artificial or

prerecorded voice.

prerecorded non-marketing calls from entities such as medical professionals and, in NCLC’s view, that

101

See, e.g., Williams Comments (“[u]nwanted communication is unwanted communication, no matter the source”);

Armbruster Petition; Cranor Petition.

collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, and we received no

constitute an information collection, such collection will not present a substantial burden for small

business concerns with fewer than 25 employees and that any such burdens are outweighed by the

benefits to consumers in affording them protections from unwanted calls and text messages.

rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule changes contained in

presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments

already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the

proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in

Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §227, that this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking is hereby ADOPTED, and that Part 64 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR Part 64, is

amended as set forth in Appendix A.

days after publication in the Federal Register, except that the amendments to sections 64.1200(a)(9)(i)(F)

and 64.1200(d)(3), and new sections 64.1200(a)(10), and 64.1200(a)(11), 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(9)(i)(F),

(a)(10), (a)(11), and (d)(3), which may contain new or modified information collection requirements, will

not be required until six months after OMB completes review of any information collection requirements

that the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau determines is required under the Paperwork

109

47 CFR § 1.49(f).

Reduction Act. The Commission directs the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to announce

SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial

and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

APPENDIX A

follows:

PART 64 – MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

through (12) and revising paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:

(a) * * *

(F) The package delivery company must offer package recipients the ability to

opt out of receiving future delivery notification calls and messages and must

honor an opt-out request within a reasonable time from the date such request is

made, not to exceed six business days; and,

* * * * *

(d) * * *

* * * * *

APPENDIX B

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Rules and Regulations Implementing

(TCPA Consent NPRM).

2

The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) sought written

public comment on the proposals in the TCPA Consent NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The

comments received are discussed below in Section B. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)

conforms to the RFA.

3

5

protecting the privacy rights of consumers by allowing them to decide which callers may communicate

with them via robocalls and robotexts.

ensure that the requirements relating to providing or revoking consent under the TCPA are clear to both

callers and consumers. Specifically, the Order makes clear that consumers may revoke prior express

consent in any reasonable manner that clearly expresses a desire not to receive further calls or text

that right by designating an exclusive means to revoke consent that precludes the use of any other

reasonable method.

reasonable time not to exceed ten business days of receipt. Further, the Order reiterates that consumers

only need to revoke consent once to stop getting all calls and texts from a specific entity. It also codifies

that a one-time text message confirming a consumer’s request that no further text messages be sent does

not violate the TCPA or the Commission’s rules as long as the confirmation text merely confirms the

2

See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-49, Appx. B (June 9, 2023) (TCPA Consent NPRM).

3

5 U.S.C. § 604.

and Deterrence Act, Pub. L. No. 116-105, 133 Stat. 3274 (2019) (TRACED Act); TRACED Act § 8; Telephone

6

See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Soundbite

Communications, Inc., CG Docket No. 02-278, Declaratory Ruling, 27 FCC Rcd at 15391, paras. 7-12 (2012).

honor revocation of consent requests within 24-hours would be burdensome for small entities.

to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

Apply

the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.

9

defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small

organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”

same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act.

A “small-business

the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.

are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis,

according to data from the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a

small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.

businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million

businesses.

7

9

comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and

content/uploads/2023/03/Whats-New-Infographic-March-2023-508c.pdf (Mar. 2023).

15

of Governments

purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States.

21

Of this number, there were

Table Notes_Local Governments by Type and State_2017.

populations of less than 50,000.

clients, products, or services, (2) taking orders for clients, (3) soliciting contributions for a client, and (4)

providing information or assistance regarding a client's products or services.

27

not own the product or provide the services they are representing on behalf of clients.

business size standard for this industry classifies firms having $16.5 million or less in annual receipts as

services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=561422&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie

w=false.

31

meet the SBA size standard. We note that the U.S. Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of firms that

operated with sales/value of shipments/revenue in the individual categories for less than $100,000, and $100,000 to

33

or if providers must obtain consent from their subscribers for such robocalls and robotexts. The

burdensome to small wireless providers and recognizes that some wireless providers already honor opt-

out requests on many communications to subscribers. The Commission observes that other entities have

requirements might create for smaller wireless providers. Lastly, the Commission seeks comment on any

ACA International et al. ACA

Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee Ad Hoc

CTIA CTIA

GECU Federal Credit Union GECU

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies NAMIC

National Lifeline Association NLA

Disturb Act to update it, but I want to make clear that when we see problems we will act often and act fast

because we need to get this junk off the line.

decidir qué llamadas y textos automatizados están dispuestos a recibir y cuáles no desean recibir.