Supreme Court: courts aren't bound by FCC TCPA interpretations

In McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson, the Court held the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts to an agency's statutory interpretation in enforcement cases. Judges now read the TCPA for themselves.

General information, not legal advice. Confirm anything you act on with TCPA counsel.

What changed

In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson (June 20, 2025), the Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act doesn't require district courts to follow the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA in private enforcement cases. Courts decide for themselves what the statute means, giving the agency's view appropriate respect.

Long-standing FCC interpretations, for example on what counts as consent or as a 'call', can now be challenged case by case, so results may differ between courts.

What it means for pay-per-call teams

Long-relied-on FCC interpretations can be challenged case by case, so outcomes may vary more by court.

Checklist

• Don't rely on an FCC interpretation alone as a defense; get counsel's view on your circuit
• Stick to the conservative reading of consent and calling rules