It’s the biggest, most impactful regulation that no one is talking about. The FCC’s new TCPA consent revocation rule takes effect on April 11, 2025, yet hardly anyone has heard of it, let alone understands how to comply.

I can’t figure out why.

Maybe it’s an issue of poor branding. The rule doesn’t even have a formal name, and “FCC TCPA Consent Revocation Rule” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

Maybe it’s all the background noise. With the commotion surrounding voided CFPB rules, it’s easy to overlook regulations that are still moving forward. Spoiler: This one is!

I hosted a webinar on Wednesday where we took a deep dive into this rule, exploring what it says and how creditors and agencies can comply. The turnout was great, and the conversation even better. You can view the full webinar here.

Even after discussing this rule for an hour, I can’t stop thinking about how convoluted it is—and how challenging some of the provisions, though well-intentioned, will be to implement.

Let’s break it down with some Q&A.

When was this rule announced?

The FCC initially introduced the rule in a draft order on January 25, 2024. It then issued a public notice of the effective date in a Report and Order on February 15, 2024, officially stating that the rule would take effect on April 11, 2025.

What is the rule actually called?

There doesn’t seem to be an official name. The FCC refers to it as the “Telephone Consumer Protection Act rules on revoking consent for unwanted robocalls and robotexts.” For simplicity, let’s call it the FCC TCPA Consent Rule.

Why haven’t I heard about it?

Great question! Unfortunately, most industry publications have either glossed over or outright ignored it.

Maybe the lack of a clear name made it hard to identify? Or perhaps people confused it with other FCC rulemakings that have since been stayed?

Wait, hasn’t this rule been canceled?

No, this rule remains in effect. You might be thinking of the FCC One-To-One Consent Rule or the CFPB’s credit reporting rule, both of which have faced challenges. The FCC TCPA Consent Rule is still active, and will take effect soon.

Why does this rule matter? What does it say?

Glad you asked! Here are the key provisions:

• Companies must recognize opt-out requests made in any reasonable manner.

• Any reasonable revocation of consent will presumptively require all communications requiring equal or higher consent to stop across all channels.

• Companies have an opportunity to clarify the scope of opt-out requests.

What types of communications does the rule apply to?

The rule applies to communication channels requiring TCPA consent, including:

• Automated (ATDS) calls

• Automated texts

• Ringless voicemail

• Artificial/pre-recorded voice messages (including AI-driven outbound calls)

The rule does not apply to manually initiated calls/texts or to emails.

What does “any reasonable manner” mean for opt-outs?

Several key points:

• Companies cannot require opt-out requests to be made in specific ways. Consumers must be able to opt out using any reasonable method.

• Companies cannot use contracts to limit opt-out options or prohibit revocation.

• The FCC provides a list of words that must be treated as opt-outs, including:

  • Stop

  • Quit

  • End

  • Revoke

  • Opt out

  • Cancel

  • Unsubscribe

• BUT: By providing these words, the rule does not preclude using other words or phrases to revoke consent. So any sort of free-form text that indicates a potential desire to opt out needs to be closely monitored. Same for emojis - you better treat these emojis as opt outs! 

• Companies must monitor for opt-out requests across all communication channels, not just the one where the opt-out was received. The FCC states: “Use of any other means to revoke consent, such as voicemail or email, creates a rebuttable presumption that the consumer has revoked consent.”

The challenges in managing this are likely becoming apparent. 

We’ll need to set up systems for monitoring every possible way in which a consumer might communicate with our company. Most importantly, we’ll need to train all staff that interact with consumers in any way to identify and properly manage revocation requests. Inbound mail, email, office visits, branch visits, etc. all must be under the microscope now. 

What does “rebuttable presumption” mean?

This is a critical concept. A rebuttable presumption means that the default assumption is that the consumer has opted out. The burden of proof is on the company to prove otherwise.

With the FCC taking an expansive view of what counts as “reasonable,” this is not a position you want to be defending.

What if my texting system doesn’t allow me to see consumer replies?

The FCC anticipated this. The rule states that if you use a one-way texting system, every message you send using this system must:

1. Disclose clearly and conspicuously that two-way texting is unavailable.

2. Provide an alternative way for consumers to revoke consent 

Taking the “ostrich approach” and sticking your head in the sand won’t work!

Wait, back up. So consumers that opt out will now be opting out across all channels? 

Yes! This is the biggest departure from current practices.

Previously, opt-outs applied only to the channel they were received through. Under the new rule, an opt-out means no more TCPA-governed communications to that number, across all channels.

For example, if a consumer replies “Stop” to a text, you must also stop calling, sending ringless voicemail, and using AI outbound voice messages.

How do opt-outs affect different types of messages?

The FCC categorizes communications into three levels:

1. Marketing (highest consent required) – Opting out stops all marketing.

2. Informational (e.g., collection communications, payment reminders) – Opting out stops both informational and marketing.

3. Exempt (e.g., fraud alerts, MFA codes) – Opting out stops all exempt, informational, and marketing communications.

You can see how this gets thorny in a hurry. Opt outs to exempt and informational messages can create waterfall effects across an organization that just weren’t an issue before. And effects that I’m not sure the FCC really anticipated. 

For example, I’m out traveling for work. I have layovers in multiple cities and spend more than I usually do when I arrive at my destination. I get a text from my credit union alerting me of potential fraud. I reply indicating not to text me about it since I know that the spending is legitimate. Since this is an exempt communication, I have now opted out of all informational and marketing communications as well. 

Companies will want to closely examine how they can use the opportunity to send a clarification message to consumers to prevent unwanted opt outs. They’ll also need to have monumental levels of cross-departmental communication to manage this. 

What is the clarification message, and how does it work?

The rule allows for a one-time clarification message after an opt-out, but with restrictions:

• It must be sent within 5 minutes of receiving the opt-out.

• It cannot contain marketing content or attempt to persuade the consumer to reconsider.

• If the consumer does not respond, the opt-out stands for all channels.

Pretty challenging, right!

The 5 minute requirement almost necessitates having automated systems manage this. But one size definitely can’t fit all here. 

For example, if a consumer replies “wrong number” to a text message, you definitely don’t want to send an automated message asking them if they’re really sure they want to opt out. So the clarification messages need to be closely tailored to align with both the message that was originally sent and the consumer’s reply. 

I can also see potential challenges in avoiding making the clarification message “persuasive”.

A consumer may genuinely not know everything that they are opting out of. But a clarification message that reads “Are you sure? You’re going to miss out on….” sounds awfully like persuasive content to me. Focusing on factual clarification without persuasion will be important here. No filler or fluff words. 

What should I do next?

Complying with this rule will be challenging, especially for creditors with multiple departments sending different types of messages. Here’s where to start:

1. Audit your existing consent management systems. Identify how you currently handle opt-outs and what changes are needed.

2. Create a consent “org chart.” Assign a person or team to oversee consent management across all departments.

3. Design new systems to ensure compliance, including monitoring all opt-out channels and managing cross-channel enforcement.

4. Train, retrain, and test. Ensure staff understands how to identify and process opt-outs in every interaction.

This is a lot to take in, but we’re all in this together. Feel free to reach out with questions as you work through these changes. I’m not an attorney, but I’m happy to share my (unqualified) opinions!

🙌 Sharing is Caring

I’d like to close this with a quick ask. If you enjoyed this, please share with a colleague. Even better, take advantage of the referral program (linked below). If you disliked it, let me know why. All feedback is good feedback, after all.

Cheers,

Nate

EngageARM.com