A new chapter for TCPA enforcement and compliance

The world of TCPA compliance is undergoing a seismic shift following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp..

Our latest webinar brought together industry experts Alexandra Krasovec (Partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP), Aaron Weiss (Shareholder at Carlton Fields), and host Margaret Wise (Chief Revenue Officer at ActiveProspect) to unpack what this decision means for marketers, lead generators, legal teams, and the broader compliance landscape.

If you’re wondering who’s in charge now when it comes to interpreting TCPA rules, the short answer is: It’s complicated. But the long answer—explored in detail during this session—offers critical guidance for organizations navigating this evolving legal terrain.

TL;DR

The Supreme Court’s McLaughlin ruling has upended how TCPA rules are enforced—district courts no longer have to follow FCC interpretations. This opens the door for inconsistent rulings and increased litigation risk. Experts advise businesses to maintain strict compliance practices, especially around consent, documentation, and lead verification. State laws still apply, and AI doesn’t exempt you from TCPA rules. Bottom line: Tighten your processes, stay informed, and don’t relax your standards.

Key takeaways

• McLaughlin ruling: District courts no longer have to defer to FCC interpretations of the TCPA in private lawsuits.
• Judicial authority: Trial court judges now have more say in how TCPA rules could be  applied.
• Compliance strategy: Don’t loosen standards; maintain or strengthen consent and documentation practices.
• Litigation impact: Opens door to more legal challenges and inconsistency in how TCPA rules are interpreted.
• Existing cases: Active cases may revisit past rulings based on now-nonbinding FCC guidance.
• Lead buying risks: Watch for vendors claiming FCC rules don’t apply; continue vetting leads thoroughly.
• TrustedForm use: Having certificates isn’t enough—audit and validate consent records regularly.
• State laws: Ruling doesn’t affect state-level TCPA laws like those in Florida and Texas.
• AI voice tech: AI-generated calls may still count as artificial/prerecorded and require consent.
• AI and consent: Using AI to collect consent is risky—ensure clarity and validity.
• CMS rules: McLaughlin doesn’t impact CMS (Medicare lead generation) or other non-FCC outreach consent requirements.
• Enforcement trends: Expect fewer new federal regulations, but states may still pursue TCPA claims.
• Watch the courts: Appellate decision splits likely—stay updated through legal counsel or TCPA trackers.
• Bottom line: Keep compliance tight, stay informed, and avoid relying on AI for legal advice.

Let’s dive deeper into the topics presented above.

What happened in McLaughlin?

Historically, courts have deferred to the FCC’s interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), treating its declaratory rulings and final rules as binding under the Hobbs Act. This framework left little room for defendants (or plaintiffs) in private lawsuits to challenge those interpretations after a strict 60-day window for appeal had closed.

But in McLaughlin, the Supreme Court ruled that district courts are not bound by FCC interpretations of the Congress passed TCPA in lawsuits. This seemingly procedural change has major implications: Courts can now reinterpret TCPA provisions without deference to decades of FCC rulings.

What does this mean for TCPA compliance?

For years, businesses operated under the assumption that once the FCC issued a rule or interpretation, it became the law of the land. This included everything from consent requirements to exemptions and revocation procedures. Now, those assumptions are no longer safe.

District courts can—and likely will—begin issuing divergent opinions, leading to an uncertain patchwork of interpretations. Until appellate courts weigh in, or the Supreme Court rules on specific issues again, trial judges have the power to reshape how TCPA provisions are applied.

In short, we’re entering an era of TCPA “litigation by jurisdiction.”

Is this a win for businesses?

The answer isn’t so simple.

Alexandra noted that in the short term, this ruling may create more complexity for responsible businesses. Without a unified set of FCC interpretations to rely on, companies could face greater litigation risk and more inconsistent legal outcomes across jurisdictions.

That said, the ruling also opens the door for companies to challenge outdated or overly rigid interpretations of the law. For instance, prior express written consent rules—long seen as the bedrock of TCPA compliance—may be ripe for reevaluation.

Whether that benefits businesses or consumers depends on how courts handle these challenges over time.

Should you change your compliance strategy?

Absolutely not—at least not yet.

Both Aaron and Alexandra cautioned strongly against loosening compliance practices based on McLaughlin. In fact, companies may want to tighten up their processes, particularly around obtaining and documenting consent.

One area of focus: Making sure consent is clearly expressed and tied to a specific purpose. Relying on ambiguous “implied consent” or broad terms could put companies at risk, especially in this new, unpredictable legal environment.

Ongoing litigation: What to watch

Expect a wave of new litigation challenging various FCC interpretations. Issues like the definition of “prior express consent,” autodialer classifications, and exemptions from Do Not Call (DNC) rules are all on the table.

The key takeaway: Keep a close eye on developments in your jurisdiction, and stay in close contact with experienced TCPA counsel. This is not the time to rely on AI-generated compliance advice, as Aaron warned. “ChatGPT is not an attorney,” Alexandra quipped—especially when it’s regurgitating aggressive defense arguments as compliance gospel.

State laws still apply

Another major point: McLaughlin does not affect state-level telemarketing laws. Florida, Texas, and other states continue to enforce their own rules—and many are more aggressive than the TCPA itself.
So while the federal landscape becomes more fluid, state laws remain a strong and consistent regulatory force. Any comprehensive compliance program must account for both.

What about AI, CMS, and other regulations?

The panel also addressed timely questions about AI-driven outreach and CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) regulations. The McLaughlin ruling does not impact CMS’s 48-hour rule or the federal regulations tied to that agency, as CMS is not governed by the Hobbs Act.

As for AI, automated voice technology is likely to be treated as an “artificial or prerecorded voice” under the TCPA. That means AI-generated calls could trigger consent requirements—even if the FCC’s interpretation of what qualifies is no longer binding.

The advice? Don’t assume AI gives you a free pass. Collect valid consent. Use clear notice disclosures and consent for the use of AI voice technology around inbound or outbound communication. Stay on the safe side.

Lead buyers: Stay vigilant

For lead buyers, the message was clear: Don’t let vendors talk you into shortcuts.

With the weakening of FCC new rule-making authority, some bad actors may claim that consent standards no longer matter. They’re wrong. Responsible buyers should continue to audit their leads, scrutinize vendor contracts, and lean on tools like TrustedForm for real-time and proactive TCPA consent analysis and verification.

This is not the time to relax due diligence.

Looking ahead: Will this settle or spiral?

The Supreme Court’s decision raises more questions than it answers. Will courts converge on new standards, or will we see years of divergent rulings before clarity emerges? Will this lead to more litigation, or just more complexity in existing cases?

One thing is certain: TCPA compliance is more legally risky and operationally complex than ever.

Final thoughts

McLaughlin may not be the death knell for the TCPA—but it is a call to arms for anyone involved in lead generation, telemarketing, or compliance. The playbook has changed. The refs have changed. And the rules are now up for interpretation.

Whether that means greater flexibility, greater risk, or both—it’s too early to say. But one thing’s clear: This is the most consequential TCPA development of the decade.

Watch the full webinar replay to get all the insights and expert commentary. And be sure to subscribe to ActiveProspect’s InsideCBM newsletter for ongoing consent-based marketing updates.

DISCLAIMER: This page and all related links are provided for general informational and educational purposes only and are not legal advice. ActiveProspect does not warrant or guarantee this information will provide you with legal protection or compliance. Please consult with your legal counsel for legal and compliance advice. You are responsible for using any ActiveProspect Services in a legally compliant manner pursuant to ActiveProspect’s Terms of Service. Any quotes contained herein belong to the person(s) quoted and do not necessarily represent the views and/or opinions of ActiveProspect.