TCPA — autodialed / prerecorded / artificial-voice calls and texts to a collection agency's dialer and SMS program

Authority

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, implemented by FCC rules at 47 CFR § 64.1200. Enforced by the FCC (forfeitures), state AGs, and a private right of action (statutory damages per call/text). Text messages are treated as "calls" under these rules (see 64.1200(a)(9): "the term 'call' includes a text message, including a short message service (SMS) call"; the FCC applies the same reading to § 227(b)).

Operative text

The cell-phone consent rule (statute)

(b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment (1) Prohibitions It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States— (A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice— … (iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call, unless such call is made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States; — 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) (2023 ed., govinfo)

Caution on the final clause: the "debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States" exception (added 2015) was held to violate the First Amendment and was severed from the statute in Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. 610 (2020). From the official syllabus:

The court invalidated the government-debt exception and applied traditional severability principles to sever it from the robocall restriction. Held: The judgment is affirmed. — Barr v. AAPC, No. 19-631, syllabus (supremecourt.gov slip op.)

Do not rely on that exception even for federally guaranteed debt.

The cell-phone consent rule (FCC regulation)

(a) No person or entity may: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, initiate any telephone call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or is made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; … (iii) To any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call. — 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(1)(iii) (eCFR, current as of 2026-07-01)

Debt collection calls are NOT exempt from this rule. There is no debt-collection exemption in § 64.1200(a)(1). The FCC's enumerated cell-phone exemptions in § 64.1200(a)(9) (package delivery, inmate calling, financial institutions, healthcare) each expressly exclude debt-collection content, e.g.:

(D) Voice calls and text messages must not include any telemarketing, cross-marketing, solicitation, debt collection, or advertising content; — 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(9)(iii)(D) (financial-institution exemption)

(D) Voice calls and text messages must not include any telemarketing, solicitation, or advertising; may not include accounting, billing, debt-collection, or other financial content; and must comply with HIPAA privacy rules, 45 CFR 160.103; — 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(9)(iv)(D) (healthcare exemption)

Telemarketing/advertising calls need the higher tier of prior express written consent (47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(2)) — normally not relevant to pure collection content, but any cross-marketing in a collection call/text drags it into (a)(2).

ATDS definition and Facebook v. Duguid

(1) The term "automatic telephone dialing system" means equipment which has the capacity— (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers. — 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1)

The Supreme Court construed this definition narrowly in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021). From the official syllabus:

Held: To qualify as an "automatic telephone dialing system" under the TCPA, a device must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator, or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator. — Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511, syllabus (supremecourt.gov slip op., Apr. 1, 2021)

Note: the ATDS narrowing does nothing for artificial/prerecorded-voice calls (including ringless voicemail and AI voice) — the consent requirement for those applies regardless of how the call is dialed.

Revocation of consent — 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(10)–(12) (2024 TCPA Consent Order, FCC 24-24)

(10) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. — 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(10) (eCFR, current as of 2026-07-01)

(11) 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. — 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(11)

(12) 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. 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. — 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(12)

Effective-status of (a)(10) — verified against the FCC 2026-01-06 order (DA 26-12): the rules above took effect April 11, 2025, EXCEPT the "revoke-all" scope aspect of (a)(10), which the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau has waived — first to April 11, 2026 (2025 Waiver Order, 40 FCC Rcd 2395), then further:

In this Order, we extend the waiver of section 64.1200(a)(10) of the Commission's rules to the extent the rule requires callers to treat a request to revoke consent made by a called party in response to one type of informational message as applicable to all future robocalls and robotexts from that caller on unrelated matters. Specifically, we find that good cause exists to extend the effective date for this requirement until January 31, 2027 … — FCC, Order, DA 26-12, CG Docket No. 02-278 (rel. Jan. 6, 2026), para. 1

So as of 2026-07-03: any-reasonable-means revocation, the per-se STOP keywords, the 10-business-day honor deadline, (a)(11), and (a)(12) are all in effect; only the cross-category "revoke-all on unrelated matters" scope is waived until January 31, 2027 (and is the subject of a pending FNPRM, FCC 25-76 — watch for changes).

Calling-time window

(c) No person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation to: (1) Any residential telephone subscriber before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location), or — 47 CFR § 64.1200(c)(1)

Scope note (interpretation): 64.1200(c) governs "telephone solicitation" (marketing). The debt-collection call-time window (8am–9pm at the consumer's location, presumed inconvenient otherwise) comes from Reg F, 12 CFR 1006.6(b)(1) — see ./reg-f/communications-opt-outs.md. Both windows are 8am–9pm; a compliant call window satisfies both.

Reassigned Numbers Database (RND) safe harbor

(m) A person will not be liable for violating the prohibitions in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section by making a call to a number for which the person previously had obtained prior express consent of the called party as required in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) but at the time of the call, the number is not assigned to the subscriber to whom it was assigned at the time such prior express consent was obtained if the person, bearing the burden of proof and persuasion, demonstrates that: (1) The person, based upon the most recent numbering information reported to the Administrator pursuant to paragraph (l) of this section, by querying the database operated by the Administrator and receiving a response of "no", has verified that the number has not been permanently disconnected since the date prior express consent was obtained as required in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section; and (2) The person's call to the number was the result of the database erroneously returning a response of "no" to the person's query consisting of the number for which prior express consent was obtained as required in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section and the date on which such prior express consent was obtained. — 47 CFR § 64.1200(m) (carrier reporting duties feeding the database are at § 64.1200(l))

Private right of action (why this matters)

(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or (C) both such actions. If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. — 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)

Plain English

Interpretation — the quotes above win on any conflict.

• Consent is the whole game for the dialer. Any call or text to a cell phone using an ATDS or an artificial/prerecorded voice (including ringless voicemail and AI/synthetic voice) needs the called party's prior express consent. There is no debt-collection exemption. For non-marketing informational calls (which collection calls are), "prior express consent" is the lower tier (only telemarketing needs written consent under 64.1200(a)(2), quoted above). The FCC has interpretive rulings on when a number given to the original creditor counts as consent to collection calls (e.g., the 2008 ACA declaratory ruling) — those rulings are NOT yet pulled into this KB; verify at fcc.gov before relying on creditor-supplied consent. The burden of proving consent is on the caller, so consent provenance must be stored per number.
• Post-Duguid, "human-initiated" / non-random dialing of stored lists is generally outside the ATDS definition — but prerecorded/artificial-voice content still requires consent no matter what launched the call, and many states have their own mini-TCPAs with broader dialer definitions. Do not treat Duguid as a green light.
• Revocation: the consumer can revoke by any reasonable method — reply "STOP" (or equivalent words), an IVR opt-out, the caller's designated site/number, even a voicemail or email (rebuttable presumption). You cannot force one exclusive channel. Honor within 10 business days, hard stop. One confirmation text is allowed (best within 5 minutes), optionally asking whether the revocation covers all message categories.
• Reassigned numbers: consent attaches to the subscriber, not the number. If the number was reassigned, consent from the old holder is worthless. The only TCPA safe harbor is querying the FCC's Reassigned Numbers Database and getting an erroneous "no."
• Statutory damages are $500–$1,500 per call/text, uncapped, class-actionable — dialer bugs scale into existential numbers.

Traps / edge cases

• Text = call. Every SMS is a separate violation opportunity.
• The government-debt exception still appears in the printed statute but is judicially severed (Barr v. AAPC) — do not rely on it.
• Duguid narrowed the ATDS definition only; prerecorded/artificial voice liability is dial-method-independent (this is where ringless voicemail and AI voice agents live).
• The "revoke-all across unrelated matters" scope of (a)(10) is waived to 2027-01-31, but revocation within the same category/matter is fully effective now. Safest practice: treat any revocation as global.
• Revocation under (a)(10) kills TCPA consent for robocalls/robotexts; a Reg F opt-out (1006.6(e)) and an FDCPA cease request are separate, overlapping regimes — a "stop texting me" must be recorded against all of them.
• 64.1200(c)(1)'s 8am–9pm window formally covers solicitations; the collection-call window is Reg F 1006.6(b)(1). Same clock, different authority — cite the right one in audit trails.
• RND safe harbor requires that you actually queried the database with the consent date and got "no." No query, no safe harbor.
• Consent must come from the called party (current subscriber/customary user) — a creditor-supplied number that now rings someone else is a liability even before reassignment-database questions.

Related

• ./reg-f/call-frequency.md — 7-in-7 call caps (Reg F layer on the same dialer)
• ./reg-f/communications-opt-outs.md — Reg F 8am–9pm window, opt-out plumbing
• ./reg-f/credit-reporting-prereqs.md
• ./fdcpa/communications.md — FDCPA communication limits (15 U.S.C. § 1692c)