FCC Delays Part of the Consent Revocation Rule for One Year – But What Exactly is Being Delayed?

On April 7, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a rather confusing order in which it says it is delaying the implementation of only one key provision in its “Consent Revocation” rule. Specifically, the agency says it is delaying until April 11, 2026 the portion of Section 64.1200(a)(10) that “requires callers to treat a request to revoke consent made by a called party in response to one type of message as applicable to all future robocalls and robotexts from that caller on unrelated matters.”

They further say:

We emphasize that this waiver extends only to section 64.1200(a)(10) to the extent discussed herein. This ruling does not otherwise delay the effective date of the other rules adopted in the TCPA Consent Order. In addition, this Order does not alter the status quo relating to any other prior Commission rulings addressing revocation of consent.

So, in a nutshell, the FCC says it only intends to delay the part of Section 10 that requires treating a revocation as applying across all message types from the same caller. But what part of section 10 requires this? And what part do businesses still need to be concerned with in just a few days? To clarify, the rule, in its entirety, adds three sections (10, 11, and 12) to 64.1200. Sections 10 and 11 were set to go into effect on April 11, 2025. Section 12 went into effect last year on April 4, 2024. Confounding the whole thing further is the fact that the “revoke-all” requirement appears to be more rooted in section 12 than in section 10.

It is very important, therefore, to go through the rule very carefully to discern what is already in effect, what will take effect on April 11, 2025, and what is being delayed for a year. Let’s go through sections 10 through 12, sentence by sentence.

Section 10

Here are the seven sentences from Section 10 along with interpretations of each. Based on their wording, it appears the FCC intends for all of these requirements to take effect this Friday (April 11, 2025), except for perhaps sentence 3.

1. A called party may revoke prior express consent, including prior express written consent, to receive calls or text messages made pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) and (c)(2) of this section by using any reasonable method to clearly express a desire not to receive further calls or text messages from the caller or sender.

So, a called party can revoke their consent to receive calls or texts using any reasonable method to clearly say they no longer want to hear from the caller.

2. Any revocation request made using an automated, interactive voice or key press-activated opt-out mechanism on a call; using the words “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe” sent in reply to an incoming text message; or pursuant to a website or telephone number designated by the caller to process opt-out requests constitutes a reasonable means per se to revoke consent.

This sentence goes on to clarify that any reasonable method can include an automated opt-out during a call, using a website or phone number, or replying with any of the seven words identified.

3. If a called party uses any such method to revoke consent, that consent is considered definitively revoked and the caller may not send additional robocalls and robotexts.

Once someone revokes consent using one of these methods, the revocation is final and the caller must stop sending robocalls and texts. It would appear this is as close as this section comes to referencing the scope of opt-outs. It is CompliancePoint’s opinion that, based on the wording of the FCC’s Order, this is the ONLY portion of section 10 that is being delayed.

4. If a reply to an incoming text message uses words other than “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe,” the caller must treat that reply text as a valid revocation request if a reasonable person would understand those words to have conveyed a request to revoke consent.

If someone replies to a text using different words than the seven words identified, the caller still must treat it as a valid opt-out if a reasonable person would understand it as a request to stop messages.

5. Should the text initiator choose to use a texting protocol that does not allow reply texts, it must provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure on each text to the consumer that two-way texting is not available due to technical limitations of the texting protocol, and clearly and conspicuously provide on each text reasonable alternative ways to revoke consent.

If the sender uses a texting system that does not allow replies, each message must clearly say so and include other easy ways for the person to opt out.

6. All requests to revoke prior express consent or prior express written consent made in any reasonable manner must be honored within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days from receipt of such request.

All valid opt-out requests must be honored within a reasonable time, and no later than ten business days after they are received. It is important to note the words, “within a reasonable time,” here. Businesses do not get 10 business days by default if they have the means to do it sooner.

7. Callers or senders of text messages covered by paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) and (c)(2) of this section may not designate an exclusive means to request revocation of consent.

Businesses cannot require consumers to use only one specific way to opt out.

Section 11

Section 11 is comprised of two sentences and will also take effect on April 11, 2025:

The use of any other means to revoke consent not listed in paragraph (a)(10) of this section, such as a voicemail or email to any telephone number or email address intended to reach the caller, creates a rebuttable presumption that the consumer has revoked consent when the called party satisfies their obligation to produce evidence that such a request has been made, absent evidence to the contrary. In those circumstances, a totality of circumstances analysis will determine whether the caller can demonstrate that a request to revoke consent has not been conveyed in a reasonable manner.

If someone uses other reasonable ways—like voicemail or email—to revoke consent and can show proof, it is assumed they have opted out unless the caller can prove the request was not clear or reasonable based on all the facts.

Section 12

It also seems important to analyze Section 12, which has been in effect since April 4, 2024, as it arguably contains the strongest reference to the “revoke-all” requirement.

A one-time text message confirming a request to revoke consent from receiving any further calls or text messages does not violate paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section as long as the confirmation text merely confirms the text recipient’s revocation request and does not include any marketing or promotional information, and is the only additional message sent to the called party after receipt of the revocation request. If the confirmation text is sent within five minutes of receipt, it will be presumed to fall within the consumer’s prior express consent. If it takes longer, however, the sender will have to make a showing that such delay was reasonable.

Sending one final text to confirm someone’s opt-out is allowed if it is sent within five minutes, contains no additional marketing efforts, and is the only message sent after the request. If it is sent later than the five minutes, the sender must show the delay was reasonable.

To the extent that the text recipient has consented to several categories of text messages from the text sender, the confirmation message may request clarification as to whether the revocation request was meant to encompass all such messages; the sender must cease all further texts for which consent is required absent further clarification that the recipient wishes to continue to receive certain text messages.

So, for example, if—and only if—the recipient has consented to multiple types of informational texts, the confirmation message can ask the consumer to clarify if they want to stop all messages or just the type that received the opt out. However, the sender must stop sending ALL texts unless the recipient clarifies they want to keep receiving some types. Therefore, it seems this section is just as impactful—if not more impactful—relative to the “revoke all” requirement than Section 10. But, again, this section has been in effect since April 4, 2024.

Part of the Consent Revocation Rule Delayed – Final Thoughts

Perhaps most importantly, it is unclear how the FCC intends to delay the “revoke-all” requirement without also addressing that last sentence in section 12 which has already been in effect for a year.

It is also important to keep in mind that, thus far, the FCC is not changing anything about the rules in terms of expectations or what will be required, but rather just delaying the effective date of what will be required to give organizations more time to operationalize compliance. An inadvertent opt-out of all messages when opting out of one type of message could still occur in a year, but, presumably, the delay gives organizations more time to come up with measures to mitigate such an effect. It also seems that serial litigants will still have the same opportunity to test compliance in a year, if not now.

CompliancePoint has a team of experts dedicated to helping businesses ensure their marketing efforts comply with the TCPA, TSR, and all state telemarketing laws. Contact us at connect@compliancepoint.com to learn more about our services.