Telephone calls and text messages are popular ways businesses communicate with customers, but this common method of communicating also presents potentially significant business risks.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act — which is enforceable by private right of action — requires consent to place certain calls and text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. These types of calls are usually referred to as robocalls.
The TCPA also allows consent to be revoked, and the Federal Communications Commission has repeatedly opined that call and text recipients should have a simple and easy way to opt out of receiving texts and calls.
But the FCC rules have made processing opt outs complex for businesses, and opt-out requests have been a source of significant litigation, until now. On Sept. 30, the FCC approved changes to its consent revocation rules under the TCPA that may streamline this process for callers by clarifying the scope of opt outs and providing a much-needed option for callers to designate an exclusive method to opt out.
Opt Outs Under the TCPA
TCPA compliance involves significant operational complexity. Before embarking on telemarketing campaigns, callers should ensure that they have robust TCPA compliance systems and policies in place.
Among other requirements, capturing and honoring opt-out requests is a crucial portion of any TCPA compliance program. Under existing FCC guidance, the recipient of a call or text could opt out through any reasonable means, and a caller was not permitted to designate an exclusive method for called parties to opt out. Disputes over whether an opt-out attempt was reasonable or was correctly honored have generated significant TCPA litigation in recent years.
Plaintiffs have alleged that a reasonable opt out includes text replies that do not use the codified opt-out words,[1] messages to webpage chatbots, conditional revocations,[2] letters to headquarters, and many other methods of opting out. Even where a court determines that the opt out was not reasonable, there are significant litigation costs.
The forthcoming rules provide a much-needed avenue for callers to mitigate risk associated with opt outs by designating an exclusive method of opting out. But to do so callers must ensure that their procedures are updated to fall within the exclusive opt-out requirements.
Opt Outs Under the New FCC Rulemaking
On Sept. 30, the FCC approved amended rules affecting the scope of opt outs under the TCPA, and modifying the previously issued (and subsequently delayed) "revoke all" rule.[3] These rules will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.[4] The following are the key changes and considerations for callers.
Designate an exclusive means to revoke consent.
Once effective, the rule will permit callers to designate an FCC-approved opt-out method as their exclusive method for called parties to opt out. To take advantage of this option, the caller must include a compliant opt-out instruction in each call, voicemail and text message it sends.
According to the FCC's fact sheet, if an opt-out instruction is included in each call and text message, a caller may designate one of the following approved methods as the exclusive means to revoke consent, but must clearly and conspicuously disclose it as the exclusive method to revoke consent:
• "[A]n automated, interactive voice or key press-activated opt-out mechanism in response to a robocall";
• "[A] response of "stop" or a similar, standard response message sent in reply to a text message"; or
• "[A] website or telephone number provided by the caller to process opt-out requests."
If a text sender designates a reply text message as the exclusive means to opt out, an opt-out instruction that designates at least one of the above opt-out phrases is acceptable, provided that the text sender recognizes the use of any of the standardized words as a valid revocation request.
That is to say, a caller may designate "Reply Stop" as the exclusive means to opt out, but a recipient may still use one of several words to do so and the caller must timely honor that opt-out request. Those words include stop, quit, end, revoke, opt out, cancel or unsubscribe.
If a caller does not designate an exclusive means to revoke consent, the caller must process all revocation requests made by any reasonable means.
This rule does not amend any portions of the regulation that impose specific opt-out requirements. For example, specific opt-out mechanisms are required for certain artificial or prerecorded voice telephone messages made pursuant to an exemption, or that include an advertisement or telemarketing.
Those calls must include an automated, interactive voice and/or key press-activated opt-out mechanism, and such an opt out must be honored. Callers cannot circumvent the requirement to honor an interactive voice or key-press opt out for those calls by designating an alternate exclusive opt-out method, such as a webpage or text message opt out.
All requests to revoke prior express consent or prior express written consent must be honored within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 business days from receipt of such a request.
Honor opt outs as soon as possible.
Currently, an opt-out or revocation request must be honored within a reasonable time, not to exceed 10 business days from receipt of such a request. The FCC has requested comments on whether a shorter time period is reasonable, including a proposal for seven business days.
In any event, the opt out should be honored as soon as possible. Callers should consider whether their system can accommodate a shorter maximum limit on the time period to honor opt outs.
Consider the scope of the opt out.
The "revoke all" rule as initially contemplated, requiring businesses to treat any opt out as an opt out from all calls and texts, is no more. But callers still need to ensure that an opt out stops both calls and text messages for the relevant topic. An opt-out request in response to a marketing or advertising call or text message must be honored as an opt out from all marketing calls and text messages.
But an opt out from a nonmarketing informational call or text under the new rule may be more limited. Informational calls or texts must not include any advertising or marketing content.
Once the rule becomes effective, an opt-out request made in response to an informational call or text will only revoke consent for that specific category of messages to which the revocation request was directed. It will not revoke consent for all other categories of informational calls and texts.
For example, if a consumer revokes consent in response to a payment reminder, the caller must stop sending payment reminders. But the caller could continue placing calls and text messages about other nonmarketing topics for which the customer has consented, such as appointment reminders or service outage notifications.
This presents some complexity for callers to delineate categories of calls and texts. Some topics — like fraud alerts or appointment reminders — may have clear-cut boundaries, while other categories of communications may overlap or have similarities.
Thus, callers will need to assess whether their internal categories of calls or texts are sufficiently distinct that they will be able to apply an opt out to one category and not another. For example, should an opt out from a billing due date reminder also act as an opt out from notifications that a customer's billing statement is now available on their account?
One stated goal of the FCC in adopting the revised rules was to balance the consumer's ability to continue to receive calls and messages that they want to receive, while also being able to opt out of other categories of calls and text messages.
Whether categories of informational calls and text messages will overlap will vary widely by industry. All callers, however, should consider how they will categorize calls and text messages for purposes of honoring opt outs under the new rulemaking.
Upcoming Rulemakings
Additional changes to opt outs may be on the horizon. The FCC has requested comments on several significant topics relating to opt outs, and callers should consider submitting comments on these critical categories and monitoring FCC activity for new developments. Specifically, the FCC seeks comment on:
• The time frame for callers to honor revocation requests;
• Whether two-way texting functionality to allow for revocation via reply text should be mandatory;
• Whether to require callers to provide a method to revoke consent to all robocalls; and
• The treatment of affiliates for opt out purposes.
Conclusion
The FCC's recent changes to the revocation rule help to streamline the opt-out process by allowing callers to designate an exclusive means to opt out of most calls and texts. And while the rule limits the scope of revocation requests for informational calls, it also introduces nuances to the opt-out process that may be challenging to operationalize.
The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 per call or text and up to $1,500 per call or text for willful violations, and imposes and no cap on damages. Therefore, it is crucial for businesses to ensure that their TCPA policies and procedures are up to date.
[1] See, e.g., Taylor v. Cider (US) Holding Ltd. , No. 25-CV-24496, 2026 WL 91453, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2026) ("[S]ince Defendant purportedly continued to send messages after receiving the "Please cease" reply from Plaintiff, she has provided sufficient allegations at this stage of the proceedings to establish that Defendant failed to "institute procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of [Defendant]." 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d).").
[2] Tom v. Delancey Street Group LLC et al , No. 26-CV-1150, 2026 WL 2255107, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2026) (Plaintiff's text reply stating not to text him because he was getting on a plane and only had Wi-Fi was not a reasonable means of opting out of all future calls/texts).
[3] See the Order here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424844A1.pdf.
[4] The effective date of the revised rulemaking explicitly supersedes the January 2027 effective date of the prior "Revoke All" rulemaking.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
