Regulatory Report: April 2025

Below is a recap of essential regulatory updates for contact compliance professionals for the month of April. 

This is a marketing blog and not intended nor should be interpreted as legal advice. Please seek legal counsel for full interpretations of all rules and laws outlined in this blog.

FCC Delays Consent Revocation “Reasonable Means” Until 2026 

If you weren’t quite ready to support all Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Consent Revocation requirements by April 11, 2025, you may be in luck. On Monday, April 7, the FCC adopted an Order that delays, what appears to be, the “reasonable means” provisions a full year, now effective on April 11, 2026. 

This delay can be attributed to the challenge – right up to the wire — by multiple banking and financial organizations who collectively expressed several consent revocation concerns in their March 11 and March 26 meetings with the FCC (see Gryphon.ai’s March 2025 Regulatory Report). 

Primary concerns: 

1. Amount of time companies had to comply (4/11/25 effective date was published on 10/11/24) 
2. Volume and complexity of work needed across multiple systems and business divisions  to accommodate ‘reasonable’ consent revocation across all channels

The banking group collective pointed out that — no delay — means no consideration for the FCC’s “Delete Delete Delete” rulemaking initiative introduced in March.  

The banking group’s request to waive the rules for one year was granted. They argued that without an extension, “businesses may pause or stop their outreach programs entirely in order to minimize TCPA risk” which ultimately could jeopardize a positive consumer experience. 

The “reasonable means” requirements certainly have considerable business impact (arguably, more consequence than the recently stayed One-to-One consent rule) especially across larger companies with multiple, disparate systems; enterprise level compliance for “reasonable” consent revocation essentially forces systematic multi-channel intercommunication.  

While interpretations of the 4/7/25 FCC Order vary regarding what provisions remain effective on 4/11/25 and what provisions were delayed to 2026, the following “reasonable means” provisions seemingly have been pushed to next year (a reminder, this is a marketing blog and not intended nor should be interpreted as legal advice):

• DELAYED: Businesses must honor consumer consent revocations through any “reasonable method”  
  • Reasonable method: defined as “when the consumer has used a method of their own choosing rather than one established by the calling or texting entity.” 
  • A consumer’s reply to a text with terms such as “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” and “unsubscribe” is considered a reasonable method 
  • If a consumer’s reply to an incoming text message uses words other than “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe,” the caller must still treat that reply as a valid revocation request if a reasonable person would understand those words to convey a request to revoke consent 
  • A consumer request submitted to a website or phone number specifically set up by the business to process opt-outs are also deemed reasonable 
  • Written or verbal requests such as email or voicemail are considered reasonable methods. 
  • If a consumer can’t respond to texts due to technical limitations, the business must disclose this limitation and provide other opt-out instructions on each text message 
  • Businesses must honor revocations and internal DNC requests ASAP, not to exceed 10 business days (and sooner if possible)

The one-time non-promotional consent confirmation TEXT appears to be unaffected (effective: 4/4/24).  

This confirmation text: 

• Must be “…the only additional message sent to the called party after receipt of the opt-out request” 
• Must be sent within 5 minutes of opt-out receipt, or a justified delay 
• May contain multiple consent categories to help the consumer understand the types of messages they’ll stop receiving vs what they’ll continue to receive 

Treatment of no response to this confirmation text is the same as opting out of all further phone and text communications. 

Don’t squander this “extra time.” Use it wisely to seek legal clarification on what FCC Consent Revocation rules apply to your company and when. Make sure your systems share critical consent information across channels, you create clear and easy to understand consent revocation procedures (or to fine tune existing ones), you define consent revocation parameters (what does a valid consent look like vs an invalid consent), and you train all impacted personnel. 

New York State of Emergency Updates

Consistent with prior communications, Executive Orders declaring disaster emergencies in the State of New York trigger telemarketing restrictions under the Nuisance Call Act.   

The Nuisance Call Act makes it unlawful for any telemarketer to make unsolicited telemarketing sales calls to areas of the state under an emergency declaration.     

Executive Order 28.24, declaring a disaster emergency in the state of New York, is effective through April 12, 2025. This order is regarding the Introduction of Non-Citizens from Countries Where a Quarantinable Communicable Disease Exists.   

Executive Order 47.4, declaring a State Disaster Emergency in the State of New York arising from an illegal and unlawful strike by correction officers, has been extended through May 9, 2025. 

Lastly, Executive Order 38.8, declaring a State Disaster Emergency for all NY counties for storm disruptions (road closures, power outages, property damage, etc.) posing an ongoing threat to public health and safety, remains in effect through April 20, 2025. 

Gryphon has extended State of Emergency blocks for New York to May 9, 2025, to ensure compliance with the above Executive Orders.

EAI Seeks Waiver for Texting During TCPA “Quiet Hours” Amidst Upsurge in Litigation 

On March 3, 2025, the Ecommerce Innovation Alliance (EAI) and others filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeking a declaratory ruling for the following: 

• To address the torrent of frivolous litigation exploiting the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) 
• “To confirm Individuals who provide prior express written consent to receive text messages cannot claim damages under the TCPA for messages received outside the hours of 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.” 
• To request clarification or waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1) regarding telephone solicitations sent to wireless devices without prior express written consent 

The primary argument in the EAI petition challenges the current FCC rules imposing an unworkable standard for businesses to know the “called party’s location” when messages are delivered to mobile phones, especially given the FCC’s restriction on access to location data, negating the businesses’ ability to comply with the Quiet Hours provision. 

The EAI affirms that the only remedy currently available for consumers disturbed by the timing of messages is to revoke consent. 

Petitioners suggest two options: 

• Waiving 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1) for telephone solicitations to wireless phones 
• Creating a non-rebuttable presumption that a wireless phone’s NPA-NXX (area code/exchange) is the called party’s location

Further, petitioners state granting the petition would curb abusive TCPA litigation, protect legitimate businesses, and allow companies to focus on innovation, job creation, and better services for consumers. 

On March 11, 2025, the FCC responded to this EAI petition and issued this Public Notice Seeking Comment (comment date: April 10, 2025, reply date: April 25, 2025). 

Here is a sampling of cases filed in 2025 for texting outside of TCPA Quiet Hours: 

1. Amani Manning v. Sol de Janeiro USA, Inc   
2. Valeria Torres vs Steve Madden  
3. Savage v. Skinny Fit, LLC  
4. Toscano v. Grenades, LLC  
5. Hensley v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.  
6. Vallejo v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company  
7. Melissa Gillum v. Good American, LLC   
8. Laureta v. Dave & Buster’s Inc  
9. James v. Disney DTC LLC  
10. Smith v. XYZ Corp  
11. Doe v. ABC Inc  
12. Johnson v. Marketing Solutions LLC  
13. Brown v. Telecom Services  
14. Williams v. Digital Outreach 

Former Credit Card Processing CEO Gets 7 Years in Prison for Telemarketing Scam 

On March 31, 2025, Brandon Becker of Los Angeles, received a 7-year prison sentence by U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska (which was lower than the Prosecutors 9-year request, per sentencing guidelines), for a telemarketing scheme leading 19,000 people to losses of $19 million.  

“This is a very serious offense that caused a great deal of harm to a great number of people,” the judge said. 

Judge Preska also directed Becker to make $1.9 million in restitution, forfeit $11.4 million, and surrender to custody on May 30th. 

In 2012, partnering with E.M. Systems & Services LLC and owner Steven Short, this debt relief company based in Florida started offering credit counseling services to low-income consumers, often charging fees over $1,000.  

Becker had a chance to shut down the scheme in 2015 and was urged to do so by an associate amidst a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit, but instead made the decision to not only continue operations but to further grow and develop the farse. 

Steven Breier, a former sales agent at Becker’s company, will be sentenced in May. 

Case 1:19-cr-00704, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 

Proposed Senate Bill Gives FCC Power to Collect TCPA Fines 

Senate Bill 1025 (S.1025) (also known as the FCC Legal Enforcement Act) introduced on March 13, 2025, by Sponsor Senator Ben Ray Lujan (New Mexico), authorizes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “to enforce its own forfeiture penalties with respect to violations of restrictions on the use of telephone equipment, and for other purposes.” 

The FCC Legal Enforcement Act, described as “necessary in the judgment of the Commission to protect subscribers from unwanted calls,” amends several sections of Title V of the Communications Act of 1934, asserting that this enhancement of the FCC’s power: 

• Strengthens consumer protection from unlawful practices involving telephone equipment 
• Streamlines enforcement of the penalty process imposing penalties on violators, ensuring faster and more efficient enforcement 
• Promotes adherence to existing restrictions on telephone equipment by increasing the consequences for violations 
• The bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. 

FCC 8th Call Blocking Order Deadline for Terminating Carriers Published 

Per the new Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Report & Order (R&O), two new rules go into effect within the next year for Voice Service Providers (VSPs): 

1. Use a reasonable Do-Not-Originate (DNO) list to block suspicious traffic (new for VSPs, already in effect for gateway and messaging service providers) 
   • Will be effective 90 days after publication in the Federal Register (no effective date yet) 
   • DNO list scope remains undefined but suggests could include “only invalid, unallocated, and unused numbers, as well as numbers for which the subscriber has requested blocking” 
   • During an investigation, VSPs may be required to provide a copy of the DNO list to the Enforcement Bureau 
2. For analytics based blocked calls, use Session Initial Protocol (SIP) code 603+  
   • Effective Date: March 24, 2026
   • Includes all terminating carriers using analytics-based call blocking (blocked by 3rd party services or by themselves); must implement SIP code 603+ (or ISUP code 21 for non-IP networks) for response notifications, replacing certain existing SIP codes 
   • 607 remains indicating call was blocked at the subscriber’s direction without the use of analytics

FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks Resigns  

On March 18, 2025, Commissioner Starks “sent a letter to the President and Leader Schumer indicating that I intended to resign my seat as a Commissioner this Spring.” Specific timeframe is undetermined.  

See Commissioner Starks’ statement here.   

H.R. 1027: QUIET Act Gains a New Co-Sponsor 

Representative Gilbert Cisneros (CA) became an additional co-sponsor of the QUIET Act on March 25, 2025. This will now have eight co-sponsors, plus its primary sponsor, Eric Sorensen. 

QUIET = Quashing Unwanted and Interruptive Electronic Telecommunications Act. 

Introduced on February 5, 2025, this Act “…amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require disclosures with respect to robocalls using artificial intelligence and to provide for enhanced penalties for certain violations involving artificial intelligence voice or text message impersonation, and for other purposes.” 

FCC Seeks Comment on Negotiation-Based Process to Transition Entire 10 Mhz in the 900 Mhz Band for Broadband Use 

On March 17, 2025, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed a review of rules governing 896-901/935-940 MHz band, for use in counties where applicants and licensees reach private agreements. 

The review includes evaluating whether the current 900 MHz broadband rules, such as eligibility criteria, application requirements, licensing and operating rules, and technical requirements, are appropriate for a ten-megahertz broadband licensing framework.  

The FCC has delegated authority to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to modify or terminate the current freeze on certain applications in the 900 MHz band. 

Comments Due: May 16, 2025 

Reply Comments Due: June 16, 2025 

About Gryphon.ai   

Staying updated with the latest regulatory changes is crucial for any enterprise aiming to minimize risk and maximize reach. Gryphon.ai is the only automatic, real-time, intelligent contact compliance solution on the market that delivers compliant, real-time intelligence into every customer conversation.    

With Gryphon.ai, enterprises can stay ahead of the regulatory curve and efficiently manage all regulatory changes, ensuring seamless compliance and operational excellence.    

To learn more about how Gryphon can help you manage these updates, reach out to us today.