FCC TCPA rule lets businesses designate an exclusive opt-out method

DLA Piper provides a full range of compliance counseling and litigation support on TCPA issues and has won numerous dismissals of TCPA cases.

On September 30, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted 3-0 to adopt a Report and Order (FCC Order 26-67) (Order) that substantially revises how consumers revoke consent to autodialed and prerecorded calls and texts (i.e., robocalls) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). Under the Order, callers and texters may now designate an exclusive method for consumers to revoke consent.

The prior FCC approach: “Any reasonable means”

Since 2015, the FCC had held that a consumer may revoke consent “in any reasonable manner that clearly expresses his or her desire not to receive further calls,” and that revocation is not limited to a method the caller has established. At the time, the FCC reasoned that letting callers designate an exclusive revocation method would “materially impair” the consumer’s right to revoke.

In its 2024 TCPA Consent Order, the FCC provided examples of reasonable methods – an automated voice or key-press opt-out, a “stop”-type reply text, or a caller-provided website or phone number – and required revocations to be honored within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days. In 2025, the FCC sought public comment on whether the “any reasonable means” standard should be modified.

Commenters told the FCC that this standard created compliance challenges. Businesses were required to recognize opt-outs arriving through any channel and in any phrasing, including informal or oral requests made to customer service staff or received by regular mail, and often had to process them manually across separate platforms, at substantial cost, and with increased error risk. Commenters also told the FCC that the standard had enabled plaintiffs to deliberately bypass clear automated opt-out instructions in favor of ambiguous phrases designed to evade recognition, “thereby manufacturing lawsuits.” The FCC noted that each disputed request invited a fact-specific, case-by-case fight over whether it was “reasonable,” making it harder to document compliance.

The new rule: An exclusive means to revoke consent

The Order amends 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10) to let callers designate one or more of the following as the exclusive means to revoke consent:

• An automated, interactive voice or key-press-activated opt-out mechanism on a call;
  
  
• A reply text using any of the following standardized words: “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe”; and/or
  
  
• A website or telephone number designated by the caller to process opt-out requests.

A caller that properly designates one or more of these methods “is not required to process revocation requests made by any other means.” Under the revised rule, a business can now route all opt-outs through a single automated channel instead of monitoring every possible communication avenue. Note that the designation must be made through a clear and conspicuous disclosure on each call or text. Notice in the online terms and conditions alone does not satisfy this requirement.

The change replaces an open-ended standard with defined revocation methods. As the FCC explained, the approach “provides clarity by eliminating the need to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a ‘reasonable means’ is used to revoke consent.”

Practical significance and compliance considerations

Operational effects. Businesses can process revocations with automated systems, reduce the delays and expense of manual handling, and may narrow the factual disputes that arise in opt-out litigation. The Order also allows callers to treat a revocation made in response to an informational (non-marketing) call or text as applying only to that specific category of message. A consumer who opts out of payment reminders, for example, can still receive fraud alerts. These amendments take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register and supersede the 2024 “revoke all” requirement, whose effective date had been extended to January 31, 2027.

Conditions and limitations.

• Only three approved methods. Callers may not designate other methods, including revocation procedures prescribed by other regulators.
  
  
• Mandatory disclosure. The designated method must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed on the call or in the text. The FCC rejected comments suggesting that businesses should decide when and how to inform consumers. Businesses should state the designated opt-out method plainly in every call script, interactive voice response prompt, and text (for example, “Reply STOP to opt out”), and separate it from other content. While including such a disclosure in every message may require operational changes for many marketers, the new approach may reduce the overall compliance burden.
  
  
• “Clear and conspicuous.” The FCC defines “clear and conspicuous” disclosure as “apparent to the reasonable consumer” and “separate and distinguishable from the advertising copy or other disclosures.”
  
  
• Default rule still applies. A caller that does not designate an exclusive method must continue honoring revocations made by any reasonable means.
  
  
• Existing opt-out mandates remain. Opt-out methods required for exempted calls (such as calls and texts for emergency purposes) and for prerecorded telemarketing remain unchanged.
  
  
• Marketing opt-outs remain broad. A revocation in response to telemarketing or advertising revokes consent to all future marketing robocalls from that caller.
  
  
• Timing and one-way texting. Revocations must still be honored within ten business days. Senders using one-way texting must disclose that limitation and provide a reasonable alternative opt-out in each text.
  
  
• More changes may come. The accompanying Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on shortening the ten-day deadline (possibly to seven business days), mandating two-way texting, requiring a “revoke all” option, and how revocations apply to affiliates.

TCPA penalties and exposures

The TCPA provides a private right of action with statutory damages of USD500 per violation (or actual damages, if greater), and a court may treble damages to up to USD1,500 per violation if it finds the violation willful or knowing (47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)). Because each call or text is a separate violation, and because claims are routinely brought as class actions, exposure can be substantial. The FCC and state attorneys general may also pursue enforcement. The TCPA continues to generate high case volumes. Public reports indicate that in 2025, nearly 3,000 new TCPA cases were filed in federal courts, up substantially from the prior year. The FCC and state attorneys general may also pursue enforcement.

Weight of FCC interpretations in court

FCC interpretations of the TCPA do not bind courts in private litigation. Under current law, FCC rulings carry persuasive weight, but they are not dispositive. Defendants may challenge plaintiff-friendly FCC interpretations, but plaintiffs may likewise argue that a business-friendly rule, such as the exclusive-revocation rule, is inconsistent with the statute’s text.

Because the FCC adopted the new rule through notice-and-comment rulemaking and grounded it in what it called “the better reading” of the TCPA, courts may give it more weight than an informal interpretation. Even so, courts will independently determine whether the TCPA permits a caller to decline to process a clear revocation made through a non-designated channel.

Key takeaways

• Consider designating one or more of the three approved revocation methods and build clear and conspicuous disclosures into every call script and text template.
  
  
• Until disclosures are live, and for any channel without a designation, continue honoring revocations made by any reasonable means.
  
  
• Map informational message categories so category-specific opt-outs can be applied, while treating marketing opt-outs as global.
  
  
• Maintain records of disclosures and opt-out processing, and honor opt-outs within ten business days.
  
  
• Recognize that courts may independently assess the rule and monitor the pending rulemaking and early litigation.
  
  
• Consider continuing to honor other revocation methods when feasible, even after designating an exclusive method.

DLA Piper provides compliance counseling and litigation support on TCPA issues, including defending clients in TCPA class actions and obtaining dismissals of TCPA claims.

For more information, please contact Andrew Sacks, John Frantz, or a member of DLA Piper’s Telecommunications team.