In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. that federal district courts are not bound to defer to the FCC’s interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) during enforcement proceedings. This is another recent decision that curtails the power of federal agencies to define the scope of their own regulations and reinforces the judiciary’s role in statutory interpretation.
Under the Hobbs Act, a party may seek pre-enforcement judicial review of final FCC orders only in federal appellate courts. But the Hobbs Act was silent on judicial review of the FCC interpretations of the TCPA in subsequent enforcement proceedings.
The case arose after McLaughlin Chiropractic sued McKesson Corp. over alleged unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the TCPA. The plaintiff sought class certification for every unsolicited fax the defendant sent to class members, which grew to a substantial number of alleged violations. During this time, the FCC released its 2019 Amerifactors order excluding online faxes from TCPA coverage, resulting in a significant reduction in the number of alleged violations. When the plaintiff tried to question the FCC’s decision in the order, the district court held that it lacked authority to question and was required to defer to the FCC’s order. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.
Now, the Supreme Court has reversed that decision, holding that the Hobbs Act does not prevent district courts from independently interpreting the TCPA, even when FCC interpretations exist.
Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the 6-3 majority, emphasized that courts must apply “ordinary principles of statutory interpretation” while giving “appropriate respect”—but not blind deference – to agency views. This builds on the Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron doctrine and further limited agency interpretive authority.
Implications for Businesses
For McLaughlin and McKesson, the Court’s decision means that the district court should not have automatically accepted the FCC’s interpretation that online faxes fall outside the TCPA’s scope. The Ruling effectively revives McLaughlin’s claims for unsolicited faxes received via online services. More broadly speaking, the decision had significant implications for businesses subject to the TCPA:
- Agency Guidance is No Longer a Safe Harbor: Businesses can no longer assume that agency interpretations alone will shield them from liability in court. Courts may reach different conclusions, even if an agency has issued a formal opinion.
- Online Fax Liability Is Back on the Table: The decision revives the possibility that faxes sent to online fax services (e.g., email-to-fax platforms) may still fall under the TCPA. This could significantly expand the scope of potential liability.
- Class Action Risk Increase: This reopens the door for broader class action eligibility. With the FCC interpretations no longer binding on district courts, plaintiffs may more easily certify broader classes, raising the stakes for businesses in TCPA litigation.
- Compliance Must Be Statute-Centric: Businesses should ensure their marketing practices align with the text of the TCPA itself, not just FCC interpretations. If your business previously relied on a favorable FCC interpretation, it is time to revisit that determination.
- Greater Legal Uncertainty: Companies must now prepare for the possibility that district courts will independently interpret the TCPA differently, potentially leading to inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions.
The Ruling is likely to trigger a renewed wave of TCPA lawsuits and challenges to other agency interpretations as Plaintiffs may be emboldened to pursue claims previously thought barred by FCC rulings.
Make no mistake: this Ruling doesn’t weaken the law and proactive, statutory compliance should be your first line of defense. Don’t rely on agency guidance alone. Review your telemarketing practices, consult legal counsel, and get ready for a more unpredictable enforcement landscape.
