SPECIAL REPORT
A: After the Supreme Court’ s June 2024 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that overturned Chevron deference, Justice Brett Kavanaugh described the decision as a " course correction " intended to restore the balance of powers and ensure that the executive branch acts within the authority granted by Congress.
Kavanaugh emphasized that the ruling does not mean judges should overreach but that it safeguards the judiciary’ s role in independently interpreting statutes rather than deferring automatically to agencies.
In this way, Kavanaugh’ s statements after the Chevron overruling echoed the McKesson ruling’ s emphasis that agencies enforce laws, but the judicial branch retains the ultimate authority to interpret and " make the law " through independent statutory interpretation. As a result, I do not believe Congress will step in to amend the TCPA to preclude judicial review.
On a different matter, congressional lawmakers have already stepped in following the Eighth Circuit’ s click-to-cancel decision. House and Senate Democrats have introduced The Click to Cancel Act of 2025, seeking to codify the rule( H. R. 4819, S. 2254).
States will always be part of the equation with telemarketing-specific legislation. The more agile states will continue to identify gaps in federal regulations and cover them in their own statutes in the interests of their constituents. They will continue expanding their typically more restrictive regulatory frameworks even if Congress delays or does not amend the TCPA to preclude judicial review.
This has already been happening with the TSR. For example, Pennsylvania lawmakers have been working on the state’ s own version of the click-to-cancel legislation.
Pennsylvania’ s proactive stance shows that, while federal action may be stalled, the momentum for consumer-friendly subscription laws continues at the state level, offering clarity for residents and a signal for national policy debates.
SO, IS IT CORRECT TO ASSUME THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS TOSSED THE TCPA BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURTS? IF SO, DO YOU BELIEVE THE CHALLENGES TO THE LAW WILL END UP AT THE SUPREME COURT FOR IT TO DECIDE ON THE LEGALITY OF SECTIONS, INDEED, POSSIBLY, THE WHOLE OF THE TCPA? THE TSR?
A: Yes, that’ s exactly what happened: the Supreme Court returned interpretative authority over the TCPA to district courts rather than requiring automatic deference to the FCC.
The Supreme Court has already shown interest in clarifying the role and scope of agency authority versus judicial interpretation in this space( e. g., Chevron deference overruling and now the McKesson decision).
Therefore, given the intense litigation environment, further Supreme Court review can be expected to address unresolved or emerging disputes about the lawfulness and application of TCPA and TSR provisions.
WHAT IS YOUR ADVICE TO CONTACT CENTERS IN NAVIGATING THE TCPA AND THE TSR?
A: Contact centers have plenty on their plates, but prioritizing consent can make a significant difference. At the same time, staying grounded in the fundamentals will continue to ensure a stable foundation for compliance.
Focus on consent. Consent is king. Not just a regulatory gold mine( provable, documented prior express written consent overrides nearly all TCPA restrictions on telemarketing and automated calls or texts). But also the foundation for greater customer trust, stronger engagement, lasting loyalty, and a meaningful boost to ROI.
Document everything. Keep meticulous records of consumer consent and use advanced tools to manage consent and autodialer compliance, since legal standards are increasingly case-specific( See the FTC ' s Final Rule [ as part of the TSR ] regarding recordkeeping requirements).
Establish faster and expanded opt-out processing. Call centers must now honor consumer opt-out requests within 10 business days( reduced from 30) and accept revocations by any " reasonable " method: verbal, text, email, web form, or otherwise.
Businesses cannot restrict revocation to exclusive methods. This 10-business-day timeframe for phone and text opt-outs now aligns with the FTC’ s longstanding CAN-SPAM email requirement.
Look ahead- cross-channel opt-out deferral. The cross-channel opt-out rule( honoring opt-outs for phone and text across all communication types, e. g., marketing, informational, content-specific, etc.) was delayed to April 2026. This gives call centers an additional year to adapt systems for this significant change, so be ready.
( Note: a request to eliminate the“ revoke all” has been brought forward by debt collectors, led by ACA International.)
Stay flexible. Build compliance protocols that can adapt quickly to new court rulings and regulatory changes to avoid costly overhauls.
Watch legal trends. Regularly monitor lawsuits, judicial rulings, and regulatory updates to stay ahead of shifting interpretations in TCPA and TSR enforcement.
Work closely with legal counsel. Frequently consult specialized lawyers to get timely, expert advice on compliance and minimize risk in this evolving landscape.
Prepare for FTC impacts. Proactively adjust policies to meet future consent and cancellation expectations to stay ahead.
Brendan Read is Editor of Contact Center Pipeline. He has been covering and working in customer service and sales and for contact center companies for most of his career. Brendan has edited and written for leading industry publications and has been an industry analyst. He also has authored and co-authored books on contact center design, customer support, and working from home. Brendan can be reached at brendan @ contactcenterpipeline. com.
40 CONTACT CENTER PIPELINE