Authorities

Every demand LAC issues cites its authority. This list collects the primary sources: the Act, the FCC’s rules and orders, the controlling Supreme Court decisions, and the state statutes pleaded alongside the federal claim. Each entry links to the official or a recognised public text. Confirm the current text and subsequent history of any authority before relying on it.

A.Statutes and regulations

1. Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227.The Act. Restricts calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice (§ 227(b)); directs the FCC to protect residential subscribers’ privacy rights, including through the National Do Not Call Registry (§ 227(c)); creates private rights of action under § 227(b)(3) and § 227(c)(5), each providing $500 per violation and up to treble damages for wilful or knowing violations.
2. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, Delivery restrictions.The FCC’s implementing rule. Defines prior express consent and prior express written consent, prescribes the do-not-call rules, including the company-specific list and the safe harbour, and sets calling-hour and identification requirements.
3. 16 C.F.R. Part 310, Telemarketing Sales Rule.The Federal Trade Commission’s parallel rule under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101–6108. No private right of action for individuals, but relevant to the characterisation of conduct and to state enforcement.

B.Commission orders

1. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, FCC 03-153 (2003).Established the National Do Not Call Registry in coordination with the FTC and adopted the modern framework of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.
2. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 1830, FCC 12-21 (2012).Introduced the requirement of prior express written consent for telemarketing robocalls and texts to wireless numbers, and removed the established-business-relationship exemption for prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential lines.
3. In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Declaratory Ruling and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 7961, FCC 15-72 (2015) (the “2015 Omnibus Order”).Addressed the definition of an autodialer, revocation of consent by any reasonable means, and liability for calls to reassigned numbers. The autodialer and reassigned-number holdings were set aside in ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018); the revocation holding survived.
4. Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful Text Messages; Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Second Report and Order, FCC 23-107 (2023).Adopted the “one-to-one consent” rule requiring that prior express written consent authorise a single identified seller, closing the lead-generator loophole. The one-to-one consent provision was vacated in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025). Retained here for the history of the consent standard.

C.Decisions of the Supreme Court

1. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (2012).Federal courts have federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA actions. The Act’s reference to state courts does not make state-court jurisdiction exclusive.
2. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016).An unaccepted offer of complete relief does not moot an individual TCPA claim or the putative class claims. Government contractors enjoy no derivative sovereign immunity where they violate federal law.
3. Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. 610 (2020).The 2015 exception for calls collecting government-backed debt was a content-based restriction that failed strict scrutiny. The exception was severed; the general robocall restriction in § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) stands.
4. Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021).An “automatic telephone dialing system” must have the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator. Equipment that merely dials from a stored list is not an autodialer under § 227(a)(1).
5. McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. ___ (2025).The Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in private TCPA litigation to the FCC’s interpretation of the statute. Courts must determine the meaning of the Act independently, giving the agency’s view appropriate respect.

D.State analogues

Several States have enacted statutes that parallel or extend the federal Act and may be pleaded alongside it. Four are listed. Other States, including Arizona, Georgia, Maryland and New Jersey, have enacted comparable provisions.

1. Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.059.Prior express written consent requirement for automated sales calls and texts, calling-hour limits, and a private right of action for $500 per violation, trebled for wilful or knowing violations. Amended by HB 761 (2023) to require a fifteen-day cure period after a “STOP” request before a text-message action is brought.
2. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 302 (Telephone Solicitation Registration) and § 305.053 (Private Right of Action).Registration requirement for telephone solicitors; § 305.053 permits a Texas resident to sue for a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227 or its regulations for $500 per violation, trebled for wilful or knowing violations.
3. Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation Act of 2022, Okla. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 775C.1–775C.7.Modelled on the Florida statute. Prior express written consent for automated sales calls, calling-hour restrictions, and a private right of action for $500 per violation, trebled for wilful or knowing violations.
4. Wash. Rev. Code § 80.36.390 (Commercial Telephone Solicitation) and ch. 19.86 (Consumer Protection Act).Restricts commercial telephone solicitation, including calls to persons who have asked not to be called, and deems a violation an unfair or deceptive practice actionable under the Consumer Protection Act. Expanded by HB 1051 (2022) to text messages and to calls made from outside the State.