If you thought for a moment that compliance with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act could not get more complex, the Supreme Court of the United States is here to disabuse you of that notion. 

On June 20, 2025, the Court held that the Hobbs Administrative Orders Review Act—providing for pre-enforcement judicial review of Federal Communications Commission orders, and previously interpreted to generally bar district courts from disagreeing with the FCC’s statutory interpretations—does not prevent district courts from independently determining the meaning of a statute, even if an agency has issued interpretation. Mclaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corp. Et Al., 606 U.S. ___ (2025). Instead, district courts must apply ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, while still affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation. McLaughlin reverses a Ninth Circuit decision that had deemed an FCC order (regarding the applicability of the TCPA to faxes received through online fax services) binding on a district court. It continues the shift away from deference to administrative agency interpretations spurred by Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). The Court remanded the case to district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Implications for TCPA Compliance

We expect further challenges to statutory interpretations from FCC orders. This will likely result in significant legal uncertainty as district and appellate courts across the U.S. come to different conclusions, depending on their interpretation and how persuasive they find existing or future FCC orders. As with the 11^th Circuit’s decision in January 2025 to vacate the FCC’s one-to-one consent requirement, we expect to see a continued erosion of FCC orders as reliable authority for TCPA compliance. See Insurance Mktg. Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277, 2025 WL 289152 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025). 

Mitigating TCPA litigation risk now requires looking beyond FCC orders; businesses should instead prioritize compliance with statutory language in order to anticipate judicial interpretation. Businesses should audit practices tied to FCC interpretive guidance and realign them with statutory text. 

What about the Telemarketing Sales Rule?

The McLaughlin decision does not apply to regulations or other statutory interpretations promulgated by federal agencies other than the FCC, or by state agencies. Telemarketing practices designed in response to requirements in the Federal Trade Commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)). for example, are not affected by this decision. 

What other areas might be on shaky ground?

Based on recent TCPA litigation and regulation, FCC orders that may face legal challenges include:

• Consent requirements for informational vs. marketing calls (see 1991 Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA);
• Consent revocation (see 2025 Final Rule, delayed in part by one-year);
• Whether a business can imply express consent any time a consumer provides their number to a caller for a purpose “closely related” to the purpose of the call (see 2023 Order on Reconsideration and Declaratory Ruling); or
• The definition of autodialer (see 2015 Omnibus Order).

Do Not Call requirements derive from both the FCC and FTC (under the TSR), many of which overlap, as well as the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007 (15 U.S.C. § 6151), so McLaughlin’s effect on DNC is similarly uncertain and will depend heavily on judicial interpretation of the source of specific DNC provisions, the authority under which they were promulgated, and the persuasiveness of relevant FCC orders. 

The Reassigned Numbers Database safe harbor does not derive directly from a specific statute enacted by Congress, and was rather established through FCC’s Second Report and Order on Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls (December 13, 2018). As a result, if challenged, the status of the RND as a safe harbor may be uncertain and will depend on judicial interpretation of the FCC’s authority under Sections 251(e) and 201 of the TCPA.