TCPA

Subscribe to TCPA via RSS

On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. —- — S.Ct. —- 2025 WL 1716136 (2025), addressing whether, under the Administrative Orders Review Act (Hobbs Act), 28 U.S.C. §2342, district courts are bound by the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits had held that because the Hobbs Act vests exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of FCC orders in the circuit (appellate) courts, district courts were bound by the FCC’s orders interpreting the TCPA.

Yesterday, Federal Communications Commissioner Olivia Trusty announced the appointment of several members to her team stating, “I am pleased to announce the talented individuals who will be joining my team. Each brings a wealth of experience, deep commitment to public service, and a shared passion for advancing the Commission’s mission. I look forward to working alongside them as we serve the American people.”

In a significant ruling today, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its 6-3 opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, addressing the scope of judicial review under the Hobbs Act. The decision marks a pivotal moment in administrative law, particularly concerning the deference required to agency orders in enforcement proceedings. While the Supreme Court previously addressed whether the Hobbs Act applied in private litigation, it ultimately did not resolve whether a district court is required to follow a particular Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order interpreting the TCPA.

In response to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) request for input on unnecessary compliance burdens, the debt collection industry, led by ACA International, is advocating for significant reforms to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Their primary focus is on eliminating rules that impose undue compliance burdens and conflict with existing debt collection regulations. Key proposals include the revocation of the “Revoke All” rule, restoration of the Established Business Relationship (EBR) exemption, and harmonization of TCPA rules with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all down for the month. Still, everything except filings under the FDCPA were up over 2024 with CFPB complaints being up 100.4%!

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month. Not only that, but everything except filings under the FDCPA were up over 2024.

Last month, we discussed the motion filed by the National Consumers League and four small business owners to intervene in the case of Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited. v. FCC. This motion aimed to challenge the Eleventh Circuit panel’s decision that vacated the FCC’s 2023 Order, known as the One-to-One Rule. Last week, the District of Columbia, along with 27 states, filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for rehearing en banc.

On February 19, the National Consumers League (NCL) and four small business owners filed a motion to intervene in support of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the United States in the case of Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC. This motion seeks to challenge the panel’s January 24, 2025 decision that vacated the FCC’s 2023 Order, known as the One-to-One Rule.

On February 4, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed a $4,492,500 fine against Telnyx LLC for allegedly allowing illegal robocalls on its network. The FCC’s Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) serves as a formal notification of the apparent violations and the proposed monetary penalty. It is not a final Commission action. Telnyx will have the opportunity to respond to the allegations, submit evidence, and present legal arguments before the FCC makes a final determination.