New FCC rules on how people can stop robocalls and texts take effect Nov. 25

New federal rules on how people can stop robocalls and texts take effect Nov. 25, and they change who decides how an opt-out works. The Federal Communications Commission adopted the order on Sept. 30 and released it on Oct. 1, replacing a broad “revoke all” rule that was delayed several times and never took effect.

The day in tech, in one email: TLDR is the daily newsletter with links and TLDRs of the most interesting stories in startups, tech and programming.

Get TLDR →

We may earn a commission if you sign up.

The practical result is a split. A message sender can now limit a stop request to the category of informational messages the person rejected, and can name the one way a request must be made. Telemarketing keeps the stricter treatment, under which a single opt-out ends all future marketing contact from that sender.

Revoke-all is narrowed to telemarketing

The order is a final rule named “Enhancing the Ability of Consumers to Control the Robocalls,” filed under CG Docket No. 02-278 and FCC 26-67, according to the Federal Register public inspection copy. It was scheduled for publication on Oct. 26, and the rules apply 30 days after publication, which lands on Nov. 25.

The earlier 2024 approach would have required a caller to stop every robocall once a person revoked consent for one. Under the new text, that sweep survives only for advertising and telemarketing. For informational calls and texts, such as payment reminders, appointment notices or fraud alerts, the caller may treat a stop request as covering only that category. Manatt, in a client alert by Alexandra Krasovec and Harut Margaryan, gives the example that opting out of payment reminders no longer silences a bank’s fraud alerts.

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, whose lawyers represent the collections trade group ACA International, noted in its own client alert on the Nov. 25 effective date that the framework grew out of terms negotiated among ACA International, the American Bankers Association and the National Consumer Law Center. The order therefore rests on terms that both lenders’ representatives and a consumer-law group had already worked through.

Telemarketing is treated as a single category. Opting out of any marketing call or text from a business stops every future marketing message from that business, the same outcome the abandoned revoke-all rule would have produced for every kind of automated message. The line the commission drew is between selling and informing, and callers will have to sort their own messages onto one side of it.

Designated opt-out methods and the seven reply words

The second change reverses a long-standing default. Until now a person could revoke consent by any reasonable means and the caller could not narrow that. Under the order, a caller may designate an exclusive method, chosen from three options: an automated voice or key-press prompt on a call, a reply to a text using a standard word, or a designated website or phone number. Callers that name none must keep honoring any reasonable request.

A designated method has to be disclosed clearly and conspicuously, on the call or in the text itself. For text messages, seven reply words must be recognized and honored: stop, quit, end, revoke, opt out, cancel and unsubscribe. A sender can disclose just one, such as stop, as long as every one of the seven works, a clarification described by the Inside Global Tech legal blog as the one addition to the draft circulated in September.

For the person receiving the messages, that means the first step is reading the call or text for its stated method. A reply of stop to a text should work everywhere, but an emailed complaint or a plain-language request to a customer service agent may no longer count if the sender has designated something narrower.

Manatt’s summary adds that a person who wants to revoke consent must follow the caller’s designated method whenever one is set, while a revocation by any reasonable means still counts against callers that designate nothing. The practical consequence falls on the consumer side of the call: the same stop request can succeed with one sender and fail with another, depending on what that sender chose to disclose.

Ten business days and the open questions

The deadline for honoring a valid request stays at ten business days, a ceiling the order describes as a reasonable time not to exceed that. The commission paired the order with a further notice of proposed rulemaking asking whether to cut the period to seven business days, require callers to support two-way texting so a reply is possible, and condition category-specific opt-outs on also offering a one-step revoke-all choice.

The notice also asks whether separately branded affiliates should be treated as separate callers. Womble Bond Dickinson reports that comments on those proposals are due Nov. 25, the same day the rules start, with reply comments due Dec. 28.

Financial institutions get a related change. The order lets them send fraud-alert calls and texts to wireless numbers obtained from a reliable source, for example a number supplied by an authorized family member, instead of only numbers the customer gave the bank directly.

What remains open is how much the narrower rules reduce unwanted contact in practice. If the seven-day proposal or a mandatory revoke-all option is adopted, the exclusive-method structure could change again before most senders finish updating their systems for Nov. 25.

This article was produced with the assistance of AI and reviewed by Morning Overview editors prior to publication.

The day in tech, in one email: Get TLDR →

We may earn a commission if you sign up.