FCC’s Consent Revocation Rule: Language Analysis and Compliance Insights

As an important reminder, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is set to implement the remaining portion of its new Consent Revocation Rule on April 11, 2025. The first provision, allowing for a one-time confirmatory text, took effect on April 4, 2024. This rule significantly updates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by strengthening consumers’ ability to withdraw consent for robocalls and robotexts while imposing stricter compliance requirements on businesses.

While much has been written and debated about the FCC’s Report and Order and the agency’s commentary therein, it is most important to remain focused on the rule language itself—just three paragraphs at 47 CFR § 64.1200 (a)(10-12). Below is a summary and analysis of the final rule language, along with some FAQs.

Consent Revocation Methods

Consumers can revoke prior express consent to receive robocalls and robotexts using any reasonable method that communicates their desire to opt out, including:

• Automated voice or keypress opt-out mechanisms during a call.
• A designated website or phone number provided by the sender.
• Replying to texts with “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe. If different wording or phraseology is used in a reply text, it must still be honored if a “reasonable person” would interpret it as a desire to revoke consent.
• If a texting system does not allow replies, the sender must disclose this and provide alternative opt-out methods.

Analysis: Businesses cannot require a specific opt-out method and must honor opt-out requests in any reasonable form. Businesses should monitor all text responses and cease further texts if the response could reasonably be inferred to be an expression of an opt-out. This includes recognizing multi-word phrases, misspelled words, different languages (e.g., “No Mas” in Spanish), and perhaps even certain emojis as valid opt-outs.

Consent Revocation Timelines

All revocation requests must be honored within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days of receipt.

Analysis: Much has been said and written about businesses getting 10 business days to operationalize opt-outs. However, the “reasonable time” language should not be overlooked. Some recent lawsuits have challenged businesses for sending messages as few as one, four, or seven days after an opt-out and businesses are choosing to settle rather than incur additional costs to litigate those cases. To avoid legal risks, businesses should operationalize opt-outs immediately and maintain a centralized opt-out list, especially when using multiple platforms or third-party vendors.

Alternative Revocation Methods

Alternative revocation methods (e.g., voicemail or email) create a rebuttable presumption that consent has been revoked if the called party provides evidence of the request.

• The caller can challenge this presumption by providing evidence to the contrary and a totality of circumstances will determine whether a revocation request was made in a reasonable manner.

Analysis: Businesses must be prepared to track and process all opt-out requests, even if submitted via non-designated methods. This will likely require updating workflows and training staff to recognize and escalate revocation requests.

Confirmation Texts

A one-time confirmation text acknowledging a revocation is not a violation (Previously implemented on April 4, 2024) if:

• It only confirms the opt-out.
• It does not contain marketing content.
• It is sent within five minutes (unless a business is prepared to prove a delay is justified).
• If the recipient previously consented to multiple categories of texts, the confirmation may ask for clarification, but all texts for which consent is required must stop unless the consumer confirms they wish to continue receiving certain messages.

Analysis: The rule states:
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.

Therefore, businesses may only send a clarifying message if they have collected consent on a categorical/topical basis to begin with. If the consumer does not respond, all texts requiring consent must stop, including informational texts, since they require prior express consent.

Consent Revocation Rule FAQs

Doesn’t this rule only apply to messages delivered with regulated technology (ATDS, prerecorded or artificial voice)? What if my system isn’t an ATDS?

Technically, yes. However:

• Businesses should not assume their system is not an ATDS. Even after the U.S. Supreme Court’s narrow definition of an ATDS in Facebook v. Duguid, there are still unsettled areas of the law.
• If a business’ consent language includes ATDS provisions, which is the safest approach, they could struggle to argue they are exempt from rules that apply to ATDS messages.
• Managing consumer expectations and avoiding complaints is often the key to compliance. Consumers do not necessarily understand whether a system is an ATDS or not, and continuing to message them after an opt-out is an invitation for a complaint.

If a consumer opts out of texts, do I need to opt them out of calls as well?

Yes. The FCC has clarified that an opt-out of robotexts applies to robocalls, and vice versa. Best practice: Apply this rule to all messaging, even non-ATDS communications.

What is the likelihood the rule will be delayed or be upended altogether like the One-to-One Consent Rule?

On March 7, banking industry representatives met with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s Senior Counsel to raise concerns that if a consumer opts out of a certain message type, the rule could unintentionally block them from sending other important messages, like fraud alerts. They also asked for a one-year delay. Many other organizations have also urged the FCC to postpone implementation to allow more time for compliance. While it is unclear whether a delay will happen, it seems worth noting that Commissioner Carr supported advancing the rule when it was proposed. No decision has been made about a delay and businesses are well advised to continue with compliance efforts around this topic.

Conclusion

The new rule imposes strict obligations on businesses to honor consumer opt-outs swiftly and across all communication channels. Compliance efforts should focus on:

• Monitoring all responses for potential opt-outs.
• Ensuring opt-outs are processed immediately, not just within 10 days.
• Maintaining a centralized opt-out list across platforms and vendors.
• Updating systems and staff training to handle opt-out requests from various sources.

To learn more, listen to our Consent Revocation Rules and Best Practices podcast episode.

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.