This quarter has been marked by significant regulatory changes that compliance leaders need to be aware of to stay ahead in the ever-evolving landscape. Keep reading for a recap of the latest telemarketing legislation in Q1 of 2025.
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 and 11th Circuit Vacates One-to-One Consent Rule
Perhaps the biggest news of the first quarter, the FCC postponed the one-to-one consent rule (which was intended to redefine consent under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)), originally set for January 27th, due to a challenge by the Insurance Marketing Coalition (IMC). The postponement lasts until January 26, 2026, or until a date named by the FCC coming after a decision in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd v. FCC, whichever comes first.
Simultaneously, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Court) vacated the FCC ruling, sending it back to the FCC for further consideration. The Court’s ruling vacates the One-to-One consent rule entirely.
The IMC challenge claimed the rule oversteps the FCC’s authority, is arbitrary and capricious, and breaches the Administrative Procedure Act. The IMC also asserted that the additional ‘prior express consent’ restrictions were at odds with the usual statutory interpretation of ‘prior express consent’ under the TCPA and the FCC’s new ‘prior express written consent’ requirements exceeded what the TCPA stipulates. Also included in the challenge are the ‘logically and topically’ related stipulations.
The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) opposed a stay.
In December oral arguments, the Eleventh Circuit panel communicated unease with the FCC’s potential overreach and raised doubts about whether the one-to-one consent rule limits consumers’ legal right to give consent. On January 25th, the Eleventh Circuit “vacated the portion of the December 2023 TCPA order that announced the TCPA one-to-one consent rule and remanded the matter to the FCC for further proceedings.”
It’s important to note that other provisions in the “Second Text Blocking Report and Order, 38 FCC Rcd at 12258-69, paras. 30-53 are not postponed. Specifically:
- The FCC required terminating mobile wireless providers to block text messages from a particular number following notification from the Commission unless their investigation determines that the identified text messages are not illegal;
- The Commission codified that the National DNC Registry’s protections apply to text messages;
- The Commission encouraged providers to make email-to-text a service that consumers proactively opt into”
See here for more detail on the postponement and vacated ruling.
Given the action by the Eleventh Circuit at the eleventh hour, many companies have probably already shouldered operational costs in preparation for compliance with the rule. On a positive note, the regulatory burden and TCPA liability have been alleviated. At least for now.
It’s now time to readjust and focus on the FCC’s Revocation of Consent stipulations effective on April 11th (this remains unchallenged). Be sure you can honor all “reasonable” requests, in a manner and timeline compliant with the new regulation.
New State-Level Telemarketing Legislative Activity and a Newly Proposed AI TCPA Requirement
It’s still early into 2025 and there has already been significant volume and velocity of proposed parameters influencing telemarketing calls and texts.
At the federal level, the continued focus on Artificial Intelligence (AI) with respect to the TCPA has not wavered. United States HR 1027, sponsored by Eric Sorensen (Illinois), was introduced on February 5, 2025, and referred to the House Committee of Energy and Commerce on the same day.
Details:
- The bill aims to amend the Communications Act of 1934
- Requires “robocalls” using AI to disclose use of AI at beginning of call
- Proposes increased penalties for violations involving AI voice or text message impersonation
Additionally, nine states have initiated a whirlwind of telemarketing-impacting bill activity to kick off 2025:
- Arizona HB 2342: mandates blocking spam/fraud calls and calls made from dialer software.
- Illinois HB 1730: this “Stop Spoofing Law” prohibits misleading or inaccurate caller ID information transmitted via voice or VoIP and establishes a website where residents can report Caller ID incidents.
- Illinois HB 2435: amends the Telephone Solicitations Act, prohibiting telemarketing calls using automatic dialing, autodialers, or a computer program designed to mimic a human operator without consent.
- Maryland HB 107; SB 49: companion bills requiring clear disclosure of automatic renewal terms, straightforward cancellation options, advance notification of renewals, and prohibiting automatic charges without proper notice, with violations classified as unfair trade practices.
- Massachusetts HD 2198; SD 359: companion bills amending telemarketing laws, allowing businesses to register on Massachusetts’ No-Call list.
- Missouri HB 292, SB 469: companion bills amending telemarketing laws, allowing businesses to register on Missouri’s No-Call list and to apply certain obligations (disclosures and caller ID) to B2B calls.
- Missouri HB 564: this “Caller ID Anti-Spoofing Act” enhances legislation allowing businesses to register on Missouri’s No-Call list, applying disclosures and caller ID requirements to B2B calls, and prohibiting callers from entering false caller ID information with the intent to deceive, defraud, or mislead the recipient of a call.
- New York AB 1250: prohibits unsolicited telemarketing sales calls when a state of emergency or disaster emergency is declared only if the declaration includes a finding that such calls would impair actions taken to limit, control, or mitigate the emergency; the duration of the prohibition may only extend for two-week periods unless findings of necessity are made at the end of each two-week period.
- New York AB 1845: requires telemarketers to add a customer’s phone number to all their do-not-call lists if the customer requests to be added to any one of them.
- New York AB 2593: this Robocall Prevention Act amends telemarketing law prohibiting the use of equipment making calls to stored telephone numbers or using artificial or prerecorded voices without consent.
- New York SB 859: amends telemarketing law to prohibit calls or texts from using an artificial or prerecorded voice or automatic dialing device and requires telephone service providers to offer free call blocking technology to their customers.
- Virginia SB 1339: this “Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act” amends telephone solicitations law to clarify that a number used to send a text must accept reply opt-out messages and unsubscribe requests must be honored for at least 10 years. This bill was signed by the President on February 20, 2025.
- Washington HB 1103: amends telemarketing law to expand prohibitions to text messages, which cannot be sent without prior express consent.
TCPA Case Filings are Up, but Class Action Cases Dominate TCPA Litigation
TCPA cases are on the rise, which is big news itself. But the activity around TCPA class action cases is almost hard to believe. Case in point, TCPA history was made in 2024 with the largest number of TCPA class action cases ever recorded as 2,788 TCPA cases were filed (up 67% from 2023).
With the TCPA case filing trajectory trending upwards throughout the year, it hit a peak in November 2024 with 1,088 cases filed in that month alone, and with a whopping 1,039 (95.5%) certified as class actions. While December numbers dropped, they were still higher than all other months in 2024 (except November) and reflected 85.3% class action filings to close out the year.
For comparison, 76% of all TCPA cases were class action lawsuits in 2024, up from 50-57% in previous years.
And so far, TCPA class action cases recorded in 2025 are showing no signs of relief.
TCPA class action cases:
- January 2024: 64
- January 2025: 172
- 169% year over year increase
With 207 total TCPA cases filed in January 2025, it’s up 8.4% compared to December 2024.
Keep in mind these TCPA cases were all filed before the FCC’s one-to-one consent rule was scheduled to take effect in January 2025 (the ruling has since been vacated), and it’s prior to the fallout we’ll likely see from the upcoming FCC Revocation of Consent rules, effective in just a couple of weeks on April 11th, which means these cases were filed on current TCPA rules and regulations.
It’s imperative that you acknowledge and stay current on core TCPA rules and regulations at the federal level as well as state level telemarketing laws and incorporate them into your business as applicable. It’s a lot, and it’s tough – we get it! But Gryphon.ai sets the standard in the contact compliance space, so let us help. It’s what we do well.
Source: WebRecon
Consent Is King With TCPA… But It’s Under Attack
The Chevron deference ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) last year (along with strong influences from Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Skidmore v. Swift & Co (deference) cases), created opportunity for challenges to previous regulatory interpretations.
Since that SCOTUS decision in late June 2024, challenges have been trickling in; but now the faucet is open and the onslaught against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) around different flavors of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) “consent” has begun.
Specifically the FCC’s TCPA One-to-One Consent Rule, FCC’s TCPA Consent Revocation, and the FCC’s TCPA Prior Express Consent.
FCC’s TCPA One-to-One Consent Rule (Delayed until January 2026)
Challenge Against Rule
The Insurance Marketing Coalition, Ltd (IMC) vs. FCC: Late 2024 the IMC challenged the FCC rule “regarding the interpretation of “prior express consent” under the TCPA. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed and found that “the FCC’s additional restrictions on ‘prior express consent’ were inconsistent” with the prior TCPA interpretations.
Challenge in Favor of Rule
National Consumer Law Center (NCLC): Some may not realize how active and vocal the NCLC has been on their stance in favor of the One-to-One rule.
Below is a timeline of important events:
January 7, 2025: the NCLC met with Danielle Thumann, staff to FCC Commissioner Carr.
January 9, 2025: the NCLC published a press release recapping Jan. 7 meeting highlights and issued an ex parte notice on behalf of several consumer advocacy groups, expressing concern about misuse of consumers’ “consents.”
January 22, 2025: the NCLC issued a petition urging the FCC “not to act on the Emergency Petition….for a stay…” for IMC’s challenge.
January 24, 2025: the one-to-one ruling was vacated by the 11th Circuit Court
January 27, 2025: (date original FCC Revocation of Consent ruling was to take effect) the NCLC issued a statement opposing the last-minute Court decision stating it “will hurt consumers, small businesses and the American phone system” and stating the One-to-One rule is “consistent with the requirements for telemarketing calls imposed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)…”
February 19, 2025: the NCLC submitted a motion for permission to intervene, encouraging the 11th Circuit Court to reconsider the panel decision striking down the Rule. See February 20 Press Release here.
March 10, 2025: the NCLC submitted a proposed petition requesting a Full Court Rehearing in 11th Circuit Ruling to Overturn Decision, post-Loper. See March 11 Press Release here.
March 17, 2025: Last but not least, 28 State Attorneys General made their support for one-to-one consent official. State AGs offered comments in this Reply Comments document, reading in-part, “the State AGs support the Commission’s intended goal of eliminating the current practices of the lead generation industry, unscrupulous voice service providers, and illegal robocallers that abuse the Commission’s rules governing prior express written consent. In addition, the State AGs offer comments concerning the Commission’s proposals with respect to text messaging.” See Press Release Summary here.
FCC’s TCPA Consent Revocation (delayed until April 2026)
In a challenge to the upcoming FCC Consent revocation ruling, several financial organizations met with Danielle Thumann, Senior Counsel to FCC Chairman Carr on March 7, 2025 to express the following concerns:
- A “stop” revocation (for example) stops all future phone/text communications from that financial institution for unrelated matters (such as low balance alerts or warnings for unusual activity) even if not consumer’s intent
- Compliance with the order is substantial work – especially for large institutions across multiple systems
- Coordinating with external 3rd party suppliers requires yet another layer of effort and complexity
- Smaller providers are impacted, as modification of their communication systems often requires extensive manual work
- The effective date of 4/11/25 was published on 10/11/24, which allows only 6 months for compliance readiness
- Request: waive the rules for one year, to 4/11/2026 (granted)
On March 11, 2025, this Ex Parte letter was issued summarizing the earlier discussion, and signed by:
- American Bankers Association
- ACA International
- American Financial Services Association
- America’s Credit Unions
- Mortgage Bankers Association
FCC’s TCPA Prior Express Consent
March 7, 2025: A utility association representing investor-owned electric companies — specifically, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) – is challenging the FCC about prior express consent and the TCPA requirement for “demand response” (non-telemarketing) calls and text notifications. EEI is seeking FCC guidance on what constitutes allowable calls and texts, considering the prior 2016 FCC ruling clarifying policy for the “types of calls and texts from utilities that require prior express consent” for communications “closely related” to utility service. EEI asserts that demand response messaging (i) is informational and not telemarketing, (ii) ensures customer safety, and (iii) helps effectively manage electricity demands while benefiting the public interest and “helping consumers lower their cost of living.”
On March 11, 2025, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on the petition for declaratory ruling filed by EEI.
Comment Date: April 10, 2025
Reply Date: April 25, 2025
Interestingly, these “consent” challenges come at a time when the FCC announced its new “In re: Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative, which aims to solicit public input on rules, regulations or guidance documents that should be eliminated to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. This initiative is part of a broader effort to streamline and modernize FCC regulations, and it’s expected to lead to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) later in the year, where specific rules proposed for deletion or modification will be open for further public comment. The public is invited to comment on any FCC rules they believe are outdated, obsolete, or otherwise in need of modification or repeal.
The deadline for submitting comments is April 11, 2025, with reply comments due by April 28, 2025. See announcement from FCC Chair Brendan Carr here.
States Tighten the Screws on Telemarketing Legislation Amidst Deregulation Buzz
In this post-Chevron environment where the pace of federal regulation has started to soften, the states must have missed the memo. Perhaps in anticipation of telemarketing regulation challenges or maybe just ‘staying the course’ addressing individual state identified legislative gaps, the pace of State-level legislation is far from stagnant.
We provided January and February State Level Telemarketing legislation activity in our February 2025 Regulatory Report (a flurry of 13 bills in 9 states), and March bill proposal activity follows suit.
Caller ID is the most popular Telemarketing bill topic, with automated systems/calling close behind.
Caller ID
- Minnesota SB1860 amends telemarketing law to prohibit fraudulent or inaccurate Caller ID info (name or telephone number), requires telecom providers to block violators of the caller ID prohibition, and requires annual certification to the MN Public Utilities Commission.
- New York SB5912 amends telemarketing law to impose a $25,000 fine for each violation of knowingly transmitting misleading, inaccurate, or false caller identification.
Automated Systems/Calling (ADAD = Automatic Dialing and Announcing Device)
- West Virginia HB2356 amends the Code of West Virginia relating to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and proposes several telemarketing prohibitions:
- Requires “prior written consent” of the called party, including:
- Sales calls involving an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers
- Playing of a recorded or artificial voice message
- Other prohibitions such as caller ID, calling times, and call frequency
- Oregon HB3865 amends telemarketing law to broaden definition of ADAD to include text messages, and when using an ADAD. Requires telemarketing disclosures:
- To self-identify within first 10 seconds of call or in the initial text
- State the purpose of the call/text
- Identify the entity they represent
- And includes restrictions:
- Calling window from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.
- No more than three telemarketing calls/texts in a 24-hour period
FCC Adopts Call Blocking Report & Order in February Open Meeting
Just five months after the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) September 3rd Text Blocking Order (using DNO List) went into effect, another Voice Service Provider (VSP) provision for call blocking has been proposed for adoption in February’s Open FCC meeting.
The new Report & Order aims to enhance consumer protection by reducing the volume of illegal calls and ensuring that legitimate calls are not erroneously blocked.
The draft version of the 8th Report & Order (released on February 6, 2025), contains the following requirements:
- Blocking Based on a Reasonable Do-Not-Originate (DNO) List
- Requirement: All VSPs service providers must block calls that are highly likely to be illegal based on a reasonable DNO list
- Description: This list includes numbers that are invalid, unallocated, unused, or numbers for which the subscriber has requested blocking. This measure aims to prevent illegal calls from reaching consumers by ensuring that all providers in the call path participate in blocking these calls.
- Immediate Notification of Analytics-Based Blocking
- Requirement: VSPs must use Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) code 603+ for immediate notification when calls are blocked based on reasonable analytics.
- Description: SIP code 603+ provides detailed information to callers about why their call was blocked and includes contact information for redress. This ensures transparency and helps correct any erroneous blocking quickly.
- Protections for Lawful Calls
- Requirement: VSPs must ensure transparency and redress for callers whose calls are blocked in error.
- Description: This includes providing a point of contact for blocking disputes, status updates within 24 hours, and ensuring that emergency calls (e.g., 911) are not blocked. VSPs must also produce a list of blocked calls upon request.
The FCC declined to adopt a safe harbor for blocking based on a reasonable DNO list “because it is unclear what liability a provider would face for blocking based on such a list and we are unaware of any provider facing such liability since the Commission first authorized this blocking in 2017.”
On February 27, 2025, during the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) open meeting, a unanimous 4-0 vote sealed the approval and adoption of the Order. VSPs now have 12 months from the publication of the order in the Federal Register to implement the new SIP code 603+, ensuring compliance with the new requirements.
Although currently not required, the FCC’s Report & Order also urges “providers to continue to develop next-generation tools, such as Rich Call Data (RCD) and branded calling solutions,” and further suggests this could become a future mandate if this evolution doesn’t occur organically.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr referred to robocalls as “scourge,” and Commissioner Geoffrey Starks voiced his preference for former Chair Rosenworcel’s “more robust version” placing similar rules on text messages, in addition to calls.
Telnyx Fined $4.5 Million by FCC for Imposter Robocalls
On February 4, 2025, in the first FCC action under new Chairman Brendan Carr, a fine for $4,492,500 was proposed against Telnyx LLC for failing to exhibit “Know Your Customer” standards (KYC = a Stir-Shaken obligation), allowing malicious actors to originate illegal voice traffic on their network.
The FCC does not have a named “Fraud Prevention Team.” However, on February 6 and 7, 2024, FCC staff and family members received an artificial prerecorded voice message robocalls on their personal and work phones, stating this special FCC “team” would like to speak with them. One recipient of an imposter call reported that they were ultimately connected to someone who “demand[ed] that [they] pay the FCC $1000 in Google gift cards to avoid jail time for [their] crimes against the state.”
“Cracking down on illegal robocalls will be a top priority at the FCC,” said FCC Chairman Brendan Carr.
The FCC’s Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) is not a final FCC action but rather alleges violations of the law with proposed sanctions. Telnyx will be given an opportunity to respond.
United States HR 1027 “QUIET Act”
As mentioned in our February 2025 Regulatory Report Update, US HR 1027 was introduced by Representative Eric Sorenson (Illinois) to the House on February 5, 2025, and was referred to the House Committee of Energy and Commerce on the same day.
US HR 1027 is also known as the QUIET Act (Quashing Unwanted and Interruptive Electronic Telecommunications Act). The bill focuses on “increasing penalties for scammers” related to AI-driven robocalls and impersonation.
On February 6, 2025, Representative Sorenson asked and was given permission to address the House to revise and extend his remarks. His remarks were as follows:
“Mr. Speaker, across America, working families and seniors are feeling the high costs of goods. All the while, scammers are using AI technology to impersonate loved ones, their banks, or even their government. Too often, it ends up with people being duped. Every sheriff in my district tells a similar story. Police reports get filed. In some instances, hundreds of thousands of dollars are gone. Many of these hustlers are not even in our country. That is why I am reintroducing the QUIET Act. My bipartisan legislation would increase the penalties for any scammer who thinks that they can use AI to make an easy buck off of a senior citizen by stealing their Social Security check. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up to these bad actors and join me in this fight.”
- Aims to amend the Communications Act of 1934
- Requires “robocalls” using AI to disclose use of AI at beginning of call
- Proposes increased penalties for violations involving AI voice or text message impersonation
- Defines Robocall and Text Message, as follows:
- Robocall: A call or text message made using equipment that dials stored numbers or generates numbers randomly/sequentially or uses an artificial/prerecorded voice
- Text Message: Includes SMS, MMS, and RCS messages, but excludes real-time, two-way voice or video communications
New Administration Brings Staff Changes to FCC
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Chairman Brenden Carr announced several new staff appointments:
- Scott Delacourt, Chief of Staff for the Federal Communications Commission
- Greg Watson, Chief of Staff for the Office of Chairman Carr
- Arpan Sura, Senior Counsel — Spectrum and Technology
- Danielle Thumann, Senior Counsel – Wireline, Public Safety, and Consumer Protection
- Erin Boone, Senior Counsel – Media and Enforcement
- Adam Chan, National Security Counsel
- Anthony Patrone, Legal Advisor
- Callie Coker, Legal Advisor
- Matt Mittelstaedt, Director, Office of Legislative Affairs
- Stephanie Chambless, Special Counsel, Office of the General Counsel
- Drema Johnson, Confidential Assistant
For more details about staff members, click here.
FCC Chairman Brenden Carr also announced the appointment of Acting Bureau leadership as well as the Acting General Counsel and Managing Director:
- Joel Taubenblatt, Acting Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
- Trent Harkrader, Acting Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau
- Erin Boone, Acting Chief of the Media Bureau
- Debra Jordan, Acting Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
- Jacob Lewis, Acting General Counsel
- Patrick Webre, Acting Chief of the Enforcement Bureau
- Eduard Bartholme, Acting Chief of the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
- Mark Stephens, Managing Director
For the official announcement, click here.
FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks also announced that Milla Anderson, formerly a Policy Advisor, departed the Commission last week, and Kiara Ortiz will be serving as Acting Legal Advisor. For the official press release on Commissioner Starks’ changes of staff, click here.
In a public announcement on February 4th, Carr welcomed the following new staff members, all of which have extensive experience in both government and private sectors, with significant roles at the FCC or related agencies:
- Adam Candeub, General Counsel of the FCC
- Jay Schwarz, Chief, Space Bureau
- Adam Jackman, Director of Strategic Communications, Office of Media Relations
- Dana Howell, Executive Assistant, Office of Chairman Brendan Carr
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.