FCC to redefine consent for spam calls

Summary#

The Stop Spam Calls Act would direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to revise a federal regulation; it would not itself change the text of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Its stated purpose is to change the definition of “prior express written consent,” but the bill does not reproduce that definition. The bill has been introduced and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; it is not law.

  • The FCC must, within one year after enactment, revise the regulation to match the version of the definition in a specified FCC final rule published in January 2024.
  • The revised definition would take effect 18 months after enactment.
  • The bill says this change would not mean the FCC lacked authority before enactment to require written consent.
  • The bill creates no new agency, consumer application process, fine, or direct benefit.

What it means for you#

  • People and organizations making calls or sending texts: Their obligations may change if the revised definition changes what counts as prior express written consent. The bill does not include the definition’s wording, so the practical effect cannot be determined from the bill text alone.
  • People receiving calls or texts: The bill does not require you to take any action or guarantee that you will receive fewer unwanted calls or texts.
  • FCC: The agency would have a duty to revise the regulation by the bill’s deadline.
  • Current rules: The supplied material does not include the existing regulation or the referenced 2024 final rule, so I could not verify the change against the current rule.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The FCC would have to revise the regulation, but the bill gives no estimate for staff time, other costs, or funding.
  • The bill does not create a tax, fee, fine, or payment to consumers.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not state the revised definition’s wording. No publicly available information.
  • It is therefore unclear from the supplied materials which calls, texts, callers, or consent practices would be affected.
  • The bill does not explain how the revised definition would interact with other parts of the current rules.
  • The bill sets deadlines relative to enactment but does not set a calendar date; whether it takes effect depends on enactment.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to set a specific definition for written consent by directing the FCC to use wording from an identified final rule.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that putting the definition in federal regulation could give callers and recipients a clearer standard. Whether it would do so depends on the wording, which is not included here.
  • The bill preserves the statement that the FCC had authority to require written consent before the bill. This avoids treating the change as proof that the agency previously lacked that authority.

Case against#

  • The bill does not include the definition it directs the FCC to adopt, making it hard to judge who would be affected and how.
  • The revised definition would not take effect until 18 months after enactment, even though the FCC must revise the regulation within one year.
  • It is unclear from the supplied materials whether adopting that definition would reduce unwanted calls or texts, or how it would affect existing consent practices.