TCPA Law Interpretation Has Had to Adapt to New Technologies

President George H.W. Bush signed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) into law in 1991. Since that time, telephone technology continues to evolve and so does interpretation of TCPA law.

According to the original specifications of TCPA law on wikipedia, the following guidelines were established to protect consumers from unwanted invasions of privacy via the telephone:

• Restricts petitioners from calling residential phone numbers before 8:00 am or after 9:00 pm in the relevant time zone.
• Requires petitioners to honor the registrations of people on the National Do Not Call Registry.
• Requires petitioners to keep a company-specific Do Not Call list and honor each request to not call for a minimum of five years.
• Requires petitioners to provide their name, the name of the business on whose behalf they are calling, and a telephone number and/or address at which they or the business may be contacted.
• Prohibits petitioners to solicit residences that use an artificial voice or a recording.
• Prohibits the use of automated telephone equipment with an artificial or prerecorded voice to an emergency line such as 9-1-1, a hospital emergency number, a physician’s office, a hospital, health care facility, elder care room.
• Prohibits autodialed calls that could interfere with business operations by tying up one or more telephone lines in a multi-line business.
• Prohibits petitioners from sending faxes containing unwanted advertisements or calling a cell phone or any service for which the receiver might have to pay.

New Clarifications on TCPA Law for 2016

Fast forward 25 years to when cell phones and other types of technology have permeated every aspect of American society and some of these guidelines become dicey to interpret.

According to Law360, there was a backlog of requests for TCPA law clarification which resulted in a Federal Communication Commission (FCC) response. Their order led to several appeals in 2015.

The FCC order is highly controversial because it expands the definition of an “auto-dialer” or “robo-dialer.” Prior to this most recent order, the definition of an auto-dialer included telephone mechanization that randomly generated telephone numbers sequentially without input from the business.

The recent FCC order clarifies this aspect of TCPA law, expanding it to include automatic dialing equipment that can dial from a predetermined list of phone numbers or the company’s own list of customer contacts.

The FCC also noted with their order that the called party is not the expected recipient of the communication, but rather constitutes whoever is the contracted holder of the called phone number. Again, according to Law360, this aspect of the clarification of TCPA law is controversial because we live in an era in which hundreds of telephone numbers are reassigned daily.

Currently under appeal, several businesses question whether they are being set up for litigation by not being allowed to rely on the consent they have been given by the person they expected to reach at the telephone number they dialed.

Because violations of TCPA law come with such a hefty price tag at $500 to $1,500 per violation if a call recipient sues, the recent order by the FCC expanding definitions is a frustrating event for businesses. But it can be a win for consumers seeking a break from the continuous onslaught of advertising and marketing in aspects of personal life.

Join a Free TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an unsolicited text message (text spam) or prerecorded voice message (robocall), you may be eligible for compensation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Get a Free Case Evaluation Now