Compliance Alerts

A seemingly narrow classification question — whether an SMS counts as a “call” under the TCPA — carries outsized consequences. Because the statute allows plaintiffs to sue per violation, how a single text is categorized can turn a mass messaging campaign’s legal exposure from trivial into catastrophic.

Federal appellate courts aren’t aligned on this. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that text messages qualify as calls under the TCPA framework. The Seventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in a recent case, finding that texts aren’t “telephone calls” within the meaning of the Do Not Call private right of action.

These rulings shouldn’t be flattened into a simple yes-or-no rule, though. Each decision interprets a different part of the statute, so the outcome in any given dispute depends heavily on which claim is at issue, which circuit is deciding it, and which TCPA provision is in play.

That variability creates a genuine problem for organizations texting customers nationwide: the very same outbound message could generate wildly different levels of legal risk purely as a function of where the recipient happens to be and where a plaintiff chooses to sue.

Add the McLaughlin ruling to the mix, and the picture gets murkier still — courts can no longer simply defer to the FCC’s reading of the TCPA and instead must reach their own independent conclusions about what the statute means.

Bottom Line: Favorable precedent in one jurisdiction doesn’t translate into blanket protection everywhere.

And here’s the structural mismatch driving all of this. The plumbing of telecom networks has nothing to do with legal boundaries. SMS traffic typically gets routed using E.212 identifiers such as MCC-MNC codes — a system built around network architecture, not courtrooms — while legal liability tracks something completely different: the recipient’s physical location, residency, and the forum where litigation lands.

Two incompatible data models, essentially.

Courts can carve out jurisdictional distinctions in a handful of pages. Translating that distinction into operational reality is far harder — it can require overhauling routing rules, consent documentation, suppression databases, campaign logic, and audit infrastructure across an entire messaging platform.

The FCC has kicked off what may be the broadest reexamination of Universal Service Fund administration in almost thirty years.

The new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking leaves the Fund’s current operations untouched for now. Its purpose is narrower but still consequential: figuring out whether the entity managing the Fund can do so more efficiently, more transparently, and at reduced cost.

Virtually every facet of USAC’s role is on the table.

Topics the FCC is exploring include:

• Speeding up application and request handling through defined performance benchmarks and “shot clock” deadlines.
• Requiring USAC to publish data on how long its processes actually take, boosting accountability.
• Overhauling audit practices, including broader audit powers and new approaches to calculating what must be recovered.
• Capping or otherwise constraining USAC’s administrative budget and costs.
• Reassessing whether USAC should remain the Fund’s administrator on a permanent, indefinite basis.
• Restructuring the USAC Board—its size and composition—alongside tighter conflict-of-interest rules.

Two proposals stand out as particularly consequential. The first would let USAC estimate certain audit recoveries through statistical sampling instead of line-by-line transaction review. The second would push additional programs toward a “pay first, dispute later” framework, meaning repayment could be required before an appeal is resolved. Either change, if adopted, could meaningfully reshape how contributors and participants experience the program.

The Commission is also weighing whether AI tools could accelerate application processing, audits, customer support, and other back-office functions—provided adequate protections remain in place for data security and integrity.

Our Take

This is a proceeding about how the Fund is run, not whether it should continue to exist.

USAC’s day-to-day operations, not the Universal Service Fund’s underlying mission, are what’s under scrutiny here. That said, carriers, service providers, consultants, and other USAC stakeholders should pay attention—these proposals could ultimately reshape filing deadlines, audit workflows, reporting obligations, and the broader administrative relationship with USAC.

The FCC will gather public comment before determining which proposals, if any, move forward as final rules. Anyone with a regular stake in Universal Service Fund matters should keep an eye on how this develops.

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the FCC’s process for imposing monetary forfeitures, keeping intact one of the Commission’s key enforcement mechanisms. At issue was whether companies are constitutionally entitled to a jury trial before the FCC can levy financial penalties. The Court held that the FCC may investigate potential violations, determine liability, and issue forfeiture orders through its standard administrative procedure, since companies retain the ability to contest those penalties in federal court before payment can be compelled.

Practical Takeaways for Communications Providers

For communications providers, the practical takeaways are straightforward:

• The FCC’s enforcement process continues unchanged. The Commission can keep issuing Notices of Apparent Liability (NALs) and forfeiture orders as it currently does.
• Carriers retain legal recourse. A company disputing an FCC forfeiture can decline to pay and force the Department of Justice to seek collection in federal court, where the matter is heard fresh and a jury trial remains available.
• FCC determinations aren’t final. Should a case proceed to federal court, both the facts and legal issues are reviewed anew rather than simply deferring to the FCC’s findings.

Importance of Ruling

This ruling brings welcome clarity following the Supreme Court’s 2024 Jarkesy decision, which had cast doubt on federal agencies’ ability to impose civil penalties through administrative proceedings. For the telecom sector, the answer is now settled: the FCC keeps its enforcement powers, while carriers preserve a critical procedural protection—the right to an independent federal court review before any payment obligation becomes final.

Industry Outlook

The telecommunications industry is still working through what this decision means in practice. Legal observers expect the ruling to shape the FCC’s enforcement approach going forward, though the specifics remain unclear at this early stage. One likely scenario is that the Commission becomes more selective in pursuing large monetary penalties: because the Department of Justice must now bring a separate court action whenever a company declines to pay, regulators may reserve the biggest cases for violations they’re confident can hold up under full judicial review. That said, most observers anticipate the FCC’s routine enforcement activity—investigations, NALs, consent decrees, and compliance actions—will continue largely unchanged.

What Providers Should Expect

For most carriers, the decision changes very little on the operational side:

• Continue treating FCC inquiries and enforcement notices with the same level of seriousness.
• Keep in mind that a forfeiture order is not necessarily the last step in the process.
• Expect major enforcement actions to increasingly play out as litigation matters rather than purely administrative ones.

Our Take

For most providers, this ruling won’t alter routine compliance practices. The key strategic insight is this: an FCC enforcement action marks the start of a legal process, not its conclusion. Companies confronting substantial enforcement actions should assess their legal, operational, and business options early on, rather than treating an FCC forfeiture order as a final outcome. More broadly, we see the biggest shift as strategic rather than regulatory. The FCC still holds broad enforcement authority, but carriers facing significant penalties now have a clearer route to contest those penalties before an independent federal court. Whether that translates into fewer large forfeitures—or simply longer enforcement timelines—should become clearer over the coming year as the FCC and the Department of Justice settle into new enforcement patterns.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is turning up the heat on illegal robocalls. Moving beyond general policy commitments, the Commission is shifting toward a strict, prescriptive regime focused on aggressive verification, monitoring, and proactive enforcement.

At its May 20, 2026 Open Meeting, the FCC is considering a major draft proposal (FNPRM) aimed squarely at the “bad actors” enabling unlawful traffic. Following on the heels of the recent “Know-Your-Customer” (KYC) rules, this new initiative focuses heavily on “Know-Your-Upstream-Provider” (KYUP) obligations and massive upgrades to the STIR/SHAKEN framework.

Here is a quick breakdown of the five major changes on the horizon and how voice service providers can prepare.

5 Key Pillars of the New Proposal

1. Expanded KYUP Requirements: Current rules require “reasonable and effective” steps to block unlawful traffic. The new proposal mandates active, ongoing vetting. Providers must collect, verify, and monitor upstream providers’ business data and traffic patterns, and swiftly terminate relationships with high-risk actors.

2. Enhanced STIR/SHAKEN Oversight: To lock bad actors out of the authentication ecosystem, the FCC plans to tighten controls over token issuance, certification authorities, and enforcement procedures.

3. Higher Attestation Standards: The proposal formally codifies the A-, B-, and C-level attestation framework with explicit definitions. Crucially, it bans “improper attestations” where a provider overstates their knowledge of a caller’s identity.

4. Closing Authentication Gaps: The FCC wants to eliminate remaining STIR/SHAKEN hardship extensions, prohibit intentional routing that strips authentication data, and require intermediate providers to authenticate unauthenticated calls.

5. Cracking Down on Foreign Traffic: Expect heightened scrutiny and tighter safeguards on international call paths and gateway providers to block illegal foreign-originated traffic from entering U.S. networks.

KYC vs. KYUP: The Dual-Compliance Reality

If adopted, providers will need to manage two parallel compliance tracks:

1. KYC (Know Your Customer): Vetting end-user customers before service activation.
2. KYUP (Know Your Upstream Provider): Vetting and monitoring the carriers, wholesalers, and resellers handing off traffic to your network.

Conclusion: In future enforcement investigations, the FCC is highly likely to evaluate your onboarding, contracts, analytics, and attestation practices as a single, unified workflow. 

How Providers Can Prepare Now

While these rules aren’t final, they will launch a major comment cycle that impacts everyone from originating providers and VoIP resellers to enterprise voice platforms. Smart providers should audit their systems today:

 Identify and map all upstream providers sending traffic to your network.

• Compare your current onboarding and vetting processes against the FCC’s proposed baseline.
• Review third-party signing relationships to ensure your company maintains ultimate control over attestation decisions.
• Establish clear escalation and termination protocols for high-risk upstream partners.

A recent decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals may significantly reshape how “prior express consent” is interpreted under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of Texas, Inc.(Feb. 25, 2026), the court held that a consumer who gives a business their cellphone number effectively consents to receive prerecorded calls and text messages related to that relationship. The ruling affirms a lower court’s decision that a pest control company did not violate the TCPA when it used prerecorded messages to remind a customer about renewal inspections.

The plaintiff, Radley Bradford, enrolled in a service plan and provided his cellphone number as part of the agreement. Sovereign Pest Control later sent him prerecorded reminders to schedule inspections, which he followed through on multiple times. Despite renewing his plan year after year, Bradford eventually filed a class action lawsuit, arguing that the company needed his “prior express written consent,” as defined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to make such calls.

The Fifth Circuit rejected that argument. It emphasized that the TCPA itself requires only “prior express consent,” not “prior express written consent,” unless additional requirements are imposed by the FCC. Importantly, the court declined to defer to FCC interpretations and instead focused on the statutory text. It concluded that “express consent” may be either oral or written—and that voluntarily providing a phone number for contact satisfies that standard.

The court also pointed to the parties’ ongoing relationship. Bradford not only supplied his number but repeatedly renewed his service plan and never objected to the communications. This pattern, the court found, reinforced the conclusion that he consented to receive messages related to the services he continued to request.

This decision diverges from approaches taken in other circuits, such as the Ninth Circuit, where courts more heavily rely on FCC rules requiring a higher level of consent. By rejecting those interpretations, the Fifth Circuit adopts a more text-focused—and generally more business-friendly—approach to the TCPA.

The court’s reasoning reflects a broader shift in administrative law following recent Supreme Court decisions that have curtailed the doctrine known as “Chevron deference.” Historically, courts often deferred to agency interpretations when statutes were unclear. Now, courts are increasingly interpreting statutory language independently, treating agency guidance as persuasive rather than binding. As a result, longstanding FCC orders—such as those issued in 1992 and 2012—carry less authoritative weight, paving the way for rulings like Bradford.

Conclusion:

For businesses that use prerecorded calls or text messages for appointment reminders, scheduling, or service updates, this decision provides important guidance. In the Fifth Circuit, a customer’s act of providing a cellphone number in the context of a transaction or service relationship will generally qualify as “prior express consent” under the TCPA. Written consent is no longer required in most cases—unless the communication involves telemarketing.

Decision Issued: February 25, 2026

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the TCPA does not require written consent for automated or prerecorded calls.

In Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc., the court held that the statute requires only prior express consent, which may be provided orally or in writing. The TCPA does not distinguish between telemarketing and informational calls.

The court rejected the FCC’s long-standing prior express written consent rule, relying on recent Supreme Court decisions limiting judicial deference to agency interpretations.

Within the Fifth Circuit, the FCC’s written-consent requirement for telemarketing robocalls no longer applies.

Enforcement Risk

Companies should not change TCPA compliance programs yet.

Key risks include:

• The decision applies only within the Fifth Circuit
• Other federal circuits may continue enforcing FCC written-consent rules
• A circuit split could emerge
• TCPA lawsuits will continue to focus on whether prior express consent actually existed
• Juries may still determine consent disputes when documentation is unclear

Inconsistent consent documentation remains a major litigation risk.

Strategic Compliance Actions

Maintain conservative TCPA compliance practices while monitoring legal developments.

• Continue obtaining written consent where possible
• Maintain clear records of consent capture
• Audit consent workflows across marketing platforms
• Review vendor and lead-generation consent language
• Monitor emerging litigation in other circuits
• Prepare for potential regulatory or judicial changes to TCPA interpretation

This ruling signals a broader shift in how courts may evaluate FCC regulations after Loper Bright. Additional challenges to the TCPA regulatory framework are likely.

Deadline: March 1, 2026

The FCC now requires every registered voice service provider to complete annual RMD recertification.

Enforcement Risk

Failure to comply can result in:

• Immediate removal from the RMD
• Mandatory traffic blocking by other carriers
• $10,000 per violation for false or misleading statements
• $1,000 per violation for failing to update within 10 business days
• Formal FCC investigations
• Months-long reinstatement delays

Removal from the RMD can create an operational blackout scenario.

Strategic Compliance Actions

• Audit your existing RMD filing for accuracy
• Confirm mitigation plan alignment with network operations
• Update corporate identifiers and contact information
• Designate and secure MFA portal access
• Coordinate legal and technical teams
• Submit before the deadline

This is not a formality. It is a sworn representation to federal regulators.

Deadline: March 3, 2026

All telecommunications carriers and interconnected VoIP providers must submit their Annual Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) Certification.

Even if you do not actively use or share CPNI, the filing requirement still applies.

What Is at Risk?

• Civil penalties up to $251,322 per day, per violation
• Maximum fines exceeding $2.5 million
• Criminal liability for false statements
• Increased scrutiny from the FCC Enforcement Bureau

CPNI certifications must include:

• Officer signature under penalty of perjury
• Written compliance narrative
• Disclosure of breaches, complaints, or enforcement matters
• Data broker compliance statement

Improperly drafted certifications can create liability exposure.