The End of the Hobbs Act: A New Era for TCPA Compliance

In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., the Supreme Court overturned a 33-year legal framework that governed how the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was interpreted. 

The decision dismantled a key pillar, the Hobbs Act, which required lower courts to treat rulings from federal agencies like the FCC as binding. Now, federal judges can reinterpret core TCPA provisions like consent standards without deferring to the FCC.

This change has pushed TCPA compliance from predictable to radically uncertain.

“This is one of the most significant decisions I've seen in a very, very long time,” said Isaac Shloss, Chief Product Officer at Contact Center Compliance. “The impact is unknown to an extent, which is very scary.”

Get more insights here: What the McLaughlin Ruling Means for Outbound Compliance Strategy

In the webinar “SCOTUS McKesson Ruling Changes Everything About the TCPA! Hobbs Act Dead,” a panel of seasoned experts offered sharp insights into the legal upheaval. Speakers included:    

• Puja Amin, Partner at Troutman Amin, LLP

• Aaron Weiss, Shareholder at Carlton Fields

• Isaac Shloss, Chief Product Officer at Contact Center Compliance

The legal playbook that call centers have relied on for decades just got torn up. And with courts now free to interpret the law for themselves, it’s time to sharpen your compliance strategy.

Let’s get into what changed and what you need to do next.

Hobbs Act ends and a new era of TCPA interpretation begins

In a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court ruled that district courts can now make their own calls on how to interpret the TCPA.

“We thought we had the Hobbs Act to rely on to address key proponents of the TCPA, such as faxes, autodialer calls, prior express consent, reassigned number, all those phrases. We at least had some guidance when relying on the Hobbs Act,” Amin said. 

“And now with Hobbs disappearing, it's going to have a huge impact that is going to be somewhat fascinating and somewhat terrifying,” she continued. 

“[In the past], you petition the FCC, and the FCC may say, ‘You know what, you're right. That [wording] isn't very clear. Let's issue some clarification on it,’ and even if you didn’t like the rule, at least you knew clearly what the rule was,” Shloss said.

Now, those rulings are just one opinion among many, and courts can accept or reject them as they see fit. 

That’s the game-changer. The FCC is no longer the referee. Every district court in the country can draw those lines differently.

That kind of unpredictability is a legal headache and a compliance nightmare. Practices that were considered safe yesterday could be challenged tomorrow. A policy that holds up in one jurisdiction could be struck down in another. And with plaintiffs’ attorneys ready to press their advantage, this legal gray will be quickly put to the test.

Outbound leaders who once relied on FCC guidance to build their compliance programs now have to brace for a fragmented landscape, where the same call can be legal in one state and a lawsuit in another.

Next, we’ll break down exactly which rules are likely to face legal challenge first.

Compliance flashpoints to watch

With courts now free to disregard FCC interpretations, several long-standing TCPA rules could be heading straight for the chopping block. 

Here are some of the likely targets for legal challenges:

• Quiet hour restrictions: These rules limit calls to certain times of day. But without binding FCC authority, the legitimacy of those time blocks could be up for debate.

• Text messages = calls: This foundational assumption has been gospel in TCPA enforcement. But as Puja Amin noted, “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are going to really, really want to fight [to keep] that one in particular.” 

• Cell phones = residential numbers (for DNC purposes): Expect fierce litigation over whether mobile numbers fall under the same DNC protections. “I think there's a very good argument now that cell phones are not going to be covered by the National Do Not Call and Internal Do Not Call lists,” Weiss said.

• Definition of express written consent: This term has been interpreted through FCC guidance for years. Now it’s likely to be redefined one court at a time. 

• Debt collection consent standards: The traditional, more relaxed view of consent in debt collection is now in serious jeopardy. “Somebody’s going to bite on what Judge Scola has said, that just listing your number on a credit card application is not sufficient consent [for debt collection calls],” Weiss said.

Each one of these represents an area where long-standing assumptions could be tested, redefined, or thrown out entirely. And plaintiffs’ attorneys are already lining up to bring those tests to the most favorable courts.

Rise in state-level TCPA battles

Welcome to the era of forum shopping, where plaintiffs deliberately file lawsuits in jurisdictions they believe will be most favorable to their cases. Liberal-leaning circuits like the Ninth Circuit are expected to see a spike in filings, while places like the Eleventh Circuit may become settlement mills.

This strategic jurisdiction targeting will create legal whiplash for call centers operating nationwide. What’s legal in one state could be litigated to death in another, and the risks are amplified if you’re running high-volume, multi-state campaigns.

Adding to the complexity: state-level TCPA variants are likely to gain traction [note the June 2025 major overhaul of the Texas telemarketing law]. Plaintiffs' attorneys are expected to pair federal TCPA claims with state laws that include their own definitions of autodialers, consent, or Do Not Call rights.

For outbound leaders, that means it’s not just federal compliance you need to track — it’s 50 state battlefields, each with its own traps.* “We're going to have to really track the court's decisions as we navigate the different rulings that are going to come about,” Amin said.

*Convoso’s StateTracker^TM helps you stay on top of mini-TCPA laws by tailoring your dialing strategy by location. This reduces the risk of non-compliant calls that could lead to costly lawsuits.

What’s still safe (for now)

Not everything is up for grabs, at least not yet. While much of the TCPA rulebook is being reevaluated, a few key compliance foundations remain solid. 

For outbound leaders trying to separate signal from noise, here’s what still holds true:

• Established Business Relationship (EBR): EBR remains one of the few TCPA safe harbors unlikely to face immediate challenge. As Weiss noted, “EBR is incorporated into the statute by direct FCC rulemaking and specifically says that's the definition.” Translation: it’s built into the law, not just an interpretation.

• The Troutman Nine: If your consent language aligns with the Troutman Nine, a well-established legal framework for express written consent, you’re on solid ground. Amin emphasized that this remains the “gold standard” for marketing compliance, especially for campaigns targeting all 50 states.

• ATDS definition post-Facebook: The definition of autodialer has been one of the most heavily contested issues in TCPA litigation, but Facebook v. Duguid brought long-awaited clarity. “I don't expect to see much movement on that end.” However, she noted that plaintiffs’ attorneys may shift focus to state-level ATDS definitions, which vary and could become the next front in TCPA litigation.

Don’t base your compliance plan on legal tricks or AI

With so much uncertainty around how the TCPA will be interpreted going forward, it’s tempting to look for workarounds, whether that’s clever legal arguments or quick answers from AI tools.

“If you think that all these good ideas you hear from all these clever lawyers about how you could defend a TCPA action is a good compliance strategy, good luck,” said Weiss. “That’s not a good idea.”

That same warning applies to AI tools, like ChatGPT or Google’s AI summaries. “To me, the biggest risk for TCPA compliance right now is AI,” Weiss said. 

“I have this concern that what's going to happen is you're going to have a lot of people talking about litigation strategies. AI does not understand the difference between litigation strategies and compliance.”

AI might (let us reiterate: might) be able to explain legal theories correctly, but you shouldn’t use it to create your compliance strategy. Weiss didn’t sugarcoat it: “If you do that, you deserve to be sued.” 

Outbound leaders need to get their compliance guidance from experienced legal professionals, not generic AI advice. 

Stay vigilant and over-compliant

The message from every panelist was clear: tighten up compliance practices, don’t ease off. Your consent language needs to be bulletproof. You need to know whether your dialer qualifies as an ATDS under both federal and state law. And your compliance processes should be documented, up to date, and defensible.

This is especially critical for high-risk verticals like debt collection, where outdated consent assumptions can blow up fast. “If I was running a call center that did debt collection calls, I would be quaking in my boots right now… If you happen to be in the debt collection industry, I would radically reevaluate your practices from the top down the second we finish this [webinar],” Weiss said.

Until we see consistent rulings emerge from the lower courts, every call you make carries more uncertainty. That’s why the best move right now isn’t to test the limits; it’s to exceed the standard.

“Please just continue to stay buttoned up. If anything, get more buttoned up if you're in certain verticals, but do not look at this decision as a reason to loosen your compliance standards. It’s quite the opposite until we have more actual law in place,” Amin said.

Manage compliance of outbound call center campaigns with Convoso's suite of built-in compliance tools.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this page, and related links, is provided for general education purposes only and is not legal advice. Convoso does not guarantee the accuracy or appropriateness of this information to your situation. You are solely responsible for using Convoso’s services in a legally compliant way and should consult your legal counsel for compliance advice. Any quotes are solely the views of the quoted person and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Convoso.