Contact Center Pipeline September 2025 | Page 39

I predict the FCC’ s new consent revocation rules effective April 2025 are fair game for challenges post-McKesson: especially around what counts as a“ reasonable” time to act on unsubscribe or opt-out requests.

The latest TCPA rules set that“ reasonable” means processing requests as soon as possible but no later than 10 business days from receipt. Marketers could gain from courts weighing in on how- and how strictly- that“ reasonable” timeline plays out in practice.

The TCPA’ s calling time restrictions- an emerging litigation battleground, especially around texts sent during“ quiet hours”- are ripe for post-McKesson challenges.

Even before McKesson, the Edison Electric Institute( EEI) took on the FCC in this petition, arguing that demand response communications shouldn’ t require prior consent and thus should be exempt from quiet hour limits. EEI prevailed; the FCC issued this declaratory ruling on June 9, 2025.

Meanwhile, the Ecommerce Innovation Alliance( EIA) asked the FCC to clarify how to determine the“ local time at the called party’ s location” for TCPA Quiet Hours compliance, proposing a non-rebuttable presumption that a mobile number’ s area code reflects the user’ s time zone.

That decision remains pending [ at presstime ]. Quiet hours challenges were already in open season; McKesson just brings them into sharper focus.

WHAT ARE YOU HEARING ABOUT FCC TCPA ENFORCEMENT? IS IT NOW GUN-SHY? ARE YOU ALSO SEEING ANY RELUCTANCE BY THE FTC TO ENFORCE THE TSR?

A: Both agencies remain active. But there’ s a clear sense of caution as they adjust to new legal realities.

The FCC is continuing to enforce the TCPA, but its approach is more measured. With some recent rules temporarily sidelined by the courts and the Supreme Court affirming district court independence, it is focusing on clear-cut violations rather than pushing regulatory boundaries: while legal interpretations around consent and revocation remain unsettled.

The FTC, regarding the TSR, appears restrained. While it continues to act against egregious violators, broader enforcement initiatives are on hold as litigation over its authority plays out.

This period of uncertainty means few are eager to test the limits or set new precedents that might further restrict agency power.

For example, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in vacating the click-to-cancel rules, cited the agency’ s failure to comply with required preliminary regulatory analysis, quashing opportunity for public comment.

As a result, the nationwide mandate compelling businesses to offer consumers a straightforward online cancellation button is off the table, at least for now.

Other legal challenges to the TSR are likely ahead. The same pattern seen with the TCPA- industry resistance, judicial intervention, and agencies adjusting course- is expected to shape the TSR’ s future, especially as technology evolves and consumer concerns persist.

Organizations should closely monitor developments, as evolving interpretations may bring these issues to the Supreme Court in time.

DOES THE SUPREME COURT’ S DECISION OPEN THE DOOR TO AGGRESSIVE TELEMARKETERS AND FRAUDSTERS?

A: The Supreme Court’ s McKesson ruling isn’ t a free pass for aggressive telemarketers or scammers, despite shaking up the TCPA landscape. District courts now call the shots on interpreting the law, instead of blindly following FCC interpretations.

This means telemarketers can’ t just hide behind FCC rules. They have to face courts evaluating TCPA compliance on the statute’ s actual text and intent. It’ s a double-edged sword: plaintiffs gain new ways to challenge shady telemarketing practices, while defendants face more uncertainty and possible headaches across jurisdictions.

So yes, the decision injects more complexity and risk, but it doesn’ t weaken consumer protections or throw the door wide open for fraud. The FCC still retains full authority to enforce the TCPA and keep bad actors in check, wielding broad regulatory and enforcement oversight.

Expect a wave of litigation in district courts as definitions and rules get hashed out case by case. Compliance demands better documentation and solid legal strategies because there’ s no more one-size-fits-all agency shield.

Bottom line: McKesson redraws the lines but doesn’ t let telemarketers run amok. It signals a more cautious, court-driven enforcement era: not a regulatory free-for-all.

TELEMARKETING REGULATIONS HAVE LONG HAD STRONG BIPARTISAN ADVOCACY AT THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVELS; CONSUMERS AND BUSINESS- ES DON’ T LIKE TO BE BOTHERED, LET ALONE FACE FRAUD. BUT DO YOU THINK CONGRESS WILL STEP IN TO ACT, LIKE AMENDING THE TCPA TO PRECLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW? DO YOU FORESEE INDIVIDUAL STATES TAKING ACTION?

SEPTEMBER 2025 39