Do Courts Have to Defer to the FCC’s TCPA Interpretations? SCOTUS To Decide

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decades-old precedent known as “Chevron deference” in the landmark case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Chevron deference required courts to defer to administrative agencies when interpreting ambiguous or incomplete federal legislation.

The Loper Bright ruling had little effect on the TCPA because of something called the Hobbs Act. That may all change now, however, as SCOTUS has agreed to review a case that will determine the deference courts must give to FCC interpretations of the TCPA. In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation, the Court will consider whether the Hobbs Act requires district courts to accept the FCC’s legal interpretations of the TCPA.

The Hobbs Act mandates that federal district courts follow FCC interpretations of the TCPA and grants federal courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend, or determine the validity of certain final orders of the FCC. This effectively prevents a district court from questioning an FCC interpretation of the TCPA. The outcome of McLaughlin could reshape the future of TCPA as well as the relationship between courts and the FCC.

The question of FCC deference under the Hobbs Act has broad and significant implications on the TCPA. This is particularly intriguing because the FCC has long relied on the TCPA, a law over 30 years old, to regulate new calling technologies.

Depending on the outcome, district courts may either have more freedom to interpret the TCPA or be more strictly bound by FCC orders. If deference to FCC rulings is eliminated, district courts will be free to independently interpret the TCPA. Courts will likely review the enforceability of agency-created regulations, such as the FCC’s “Prior Express Written Consent” requirement, which is not explicitly found in the TCPA’s text but has become a key compliance standard. This, and similar issues, would likely lead to inconsistent interpretations across districts regarding term meanings and applicability. Businesses would need to enhance their telemarketing compliance procedures to adapt to evolving case law, especially those businesses that have been relying on favorable FCC orders.

Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled. We will continue to monitor the McLaughlin case and share our recommendations for TCPA compliance best practices.

 

* Hana Nishikawa contributed to this article.

Associate

Aaron works across numerous highly-regulated industries, helping them comply with state and federal laws related to privacy and data security, cannabis, marketing, teleservices, and other consumer protection matters.

2560 1549 Aaron Parry
Share This Post:
Start Typing
Skip to content