FCC Adopts Sweeping NPRM Reshaping TCPA Compliance

​On October 28, 2025, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the expansive Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) discussed in a prior article. Titled "Improving Verification and Presentation of Caller Identification Information," this ninth FNPRM in the ongoing robocall docket represents one of the most comprehensive telecommunications regulatory proposals in recent years, simultaneously advancing call authentication and fraud prevention while proposing to eliminate or substantially modify decades-old Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) provisions.

Key Article Takeaways

• The FCC seeks to enhance consumer protection by requiring voice service providers to verify and securely transmit caller identity information, including potential adoption of Rich Call Data (RCD) technologies to improve authenticity and fraud prevention.
  
• The FNPRM proposes the modification or elimination of longstanding TCPA compliance requirements, such as the call abandonment rule and internal Do-Not-Call list obligations.
  
• The FNPRM has sparked opposition from consumer groups and state attorneys general, who warn that removing core TCPA protections may increase the risk of abusive robocalls and litigation, while industry advocates generally support these deregulatory reforms

Caller Identity Verification and Branding Requirements

At the core of the FNPRM lies a proposal to require terminating voice service providers (“VSPs”) to transmit verified caller name information whenever they transmit call authentication information indicating that an originating number has received an A-level attestation under the STIR/SHAKEN framework, which represents a fundamental shift in caller ID practices.

Currently, terminating providers typically rely on legacy Caller ID Name (CNAM) databases to display caller information, which has been widely criticized as error-prone, incomplete, and subject to manipulation by bad actors seeking to increase call answer rates.

The FNPRM proposes to define "caller identity information" as the caller's name, location, and other information regarding the source or apparent source of a telephone call, excluding the originating telephone number and billing number information. This definition contemplates the use of Rich Call Data (RCD), an emerging standard that enables originating providers to transmit encrypted verified information—including the caller's name, logo, email address, location, title, and call reason—directly with the call over IP networks.

The FCC explicitly rejected the use of CNAM databases for this purpose, noting the extensive concerns about their reliability and susceptibility to manipulation. Instead, the Commission has encouraged development of next-generation tools such as RCD and branded calling solutions, with multiple vendors now offering call branding services that authenticate caller information before presentation to consumers.

Originating Provider Verification Requirements: The FNPRM proposes requiring originating VSPs to employ reasonable measures to verify that the caller ID information they transmit is accurate. The notice seeks extensive comment on what constitutes "reasonable" verification measures, including whether specific measures or criteria should be prescribed, whether collection and verification of specific information should be mandated, and how providers should handle scenarios involving resellers or third-party branded calling solution vendors.

This verification requirement creates significant operational implications for both VSPs and business callers. Providers originating calls must implement systems and procedures to authenticate that the name, branding information, and related data they transmit actually correspond to the entity making the call. For businesses and call centers, this means enhanced vetting of caller information before transmission and potential technological upgrades to support secure transmission of this information through the call chain.

Secure Transmission Requirements: The FNPRM proposes requirements for secure transmission of caller ID information, recognizing that it must travel through multiple provider networks while remaining protected from alteration or manipulation. Non-gateway intermediate providers would be required to pass unaltered any caller ID information indicating that a call originated outside the United States to subsequent providers in the call path.

Foreign-Originated Call Indicators: A second major component of the FNPRM addresses the substantial challenge posed by calls originating outside the United States. The Commission proposes requiring gateway providers (the first U.S.-based intermediate providers receiving offshore calls) to mark calls that originate from outside the U.S. This marking requirement extends throughout the call chain: non-gateway intermediate providers must pass this information unaltered downstream, and terminating providers must transmit an indicator to called parties when they know or have reasonable basis to know a call originated from outside the U.S.

These requirements acknowledge a critical vulnerability in current robocall mitigation: many unlawful robocalls originate from foreign jurisdictions where the FCC lacks direct enforcement authority, making it difficult to locate and pursue legal action against scammers. By transparently marking foreign-originated calls, the FCC seeks to provide consumers with information to make informed decisions about answering and to improve call blocking analytics.

Call Analytics Enhancement: The FNPRM proposes requiring VSPs using reasonable analytics to block calls to include whether a call originated offshore as a factor in their analytics calculations. This provision recognizes that call origin can serve as a valuable data point in determining robocall risk.

Modernization of TCPA Anti-Robocall Protections

Abandoning the Call Abandonment Rule: Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the FNPRM is the FCC's proposal to "simplify, streamline, or eliminate certain outdated robocall rules” via proposals that would substantially reshape TCPA compliance obligations.

The FNPRM specifically seeks comment on whether to eliminate the call abandonment rules. These regulations have prohibited telemarketers from disconnecting calls before a live person answers in more than three percent of calls placed since 2003. The current rules require telemarketers to play a prerecorded identification message within two seconds if a consumer answers an abandoned call. The FCC characterizes these requirements as outdated, thanks to evolving technology that has largely rendered them unnecessary.

Elimination of the abandonment rule would represent a significant deregulatory shift. For telemarketers and predictive dialer operators, this would eliminate one of the most technical compliance hurdles in campaign management—the need to maintain call quality controls to ensure answer/abandon ratios remain within prescribed limits.

Eliminating the Internal Do-Not-Call Requirement: The FNPRM also proposes to delete or substantially modify the TCPA's internal DNC rules, which have required businesses to maintain company-specific DNC lists for more than two decades. The FCC questions whether such internal lists remain necessary given the existence of the National DNC Registry, arguing that the dual system creates redundancy and unnecessary compliance burdens.

Industry advocates have supported this proposal as burden reduction. However, this change creates a significant risk: businesses that opt not to maintain internal lists may face new compliance obligations requiring them to subscribe to the National DNC Registry, as consumers lacking enforcement mechanisms might voice complaints that result in regulatory action. Additionally, if the internal DNC rule is eliminated but businesses remain required to honor national DNC registrations, the compliance framework becomes simplified, but the enforceability mechanisms may create new litigation vulnerabilities.

Revoking the Blanket Consent Revocation Rule: The FNPRM seeks comment on modifying the FCC’s blanket consent revocation rule, which allows consumers to revoke all consent to receive all calls and texts from a business through a single request sent using any “reasonable method.” Currently scheduled to take effect on April 11, 2026, the Commission appears to be reconsidering this broad revocation right. This proposal has generated considerable attention among telemarketers and financial services firms, who argue that the blanket consent revocation rule increases compliance complexity and creates litigation risk.

Modifying Prerecorded Caller ID Requirements: The FNPRM also seeks to eliminate or modify requirements that telemarketers play prerecorded identification messages and proposals related to "fraud alert" calls made by financial institutions, which would further streamline the regulatory framework.

Impact Analysis: Voice Service Providers

In the FNPRM, the FCC confirms that compliance with its proposed Caller ID verification and branding requirements would require the implementation of new systems, staff training, potential infrastructure upgrades, and ongoing operational procedures. While the FCC's cost-benefit analysis acknowledges the compliance burdens, the Commission appears focused on benefits to consumer fraud prevention and caller identification verification. For smaller providers or those still operating non-IP networks, the compliance costs may prove significant.

Originating Providers: If the Caller ID verification and branding proposals outlined in the NPRM are fully adopted, originating providers would face the most substantial new compliance obligations, as they would be required to implement systems to verify caller identity information before transmission, maintain records of verification procedures, and potentially implement RCD or similar technologies to securely transmit authenticated information. This creates infrastructure investments and ongoing compliance costs. Moreover, the addition of foreign-originated call marking at the gateway level creates a new data tracking obligation.

Terminating Providers: Terminating providers would be obligated to transmit similar caller ID information when A-level attestations are received and to pass foreign-origin indicators to consumers' handsets when such information is available. Wireless carriers would have to coordinate with handset manufacturers on presentation mechanisms, which may depend on operating system capabilities and manufacturer design choices.

Gateway and Intermediate Providers: Gateway providers would face the most complex obligations related to foreign-originated calls, requiring identification of international call sources and marking them for downstream transmission. Non-gateway intermediate providers would simply be required to pass through unaltered any foreign-origin indicators received.

Impact Analysis: Marketers

For legitimate companies conducting compliant telemarketing campaigns, the proposed elimination of the call abandonment rule and internal DNC requirements would substantially reduce compliance complexity. Campaign managers could optimize predictive dialer ratios without maintaining the strict three-percent threshold for abandoned calls, and training obligations for internal DNC compliance could be eliminated.

However, companies placing marketing calls and texts would face new obligations regarding caller ID verification. They would have to ensure that the name, branding, and related information transmitted accurately reflects their identity. However, many companies secure consent for specific subsidiaries or brands, rather than the whole organization, and the verification requirements could create unexpected complexity for them. In addition, reseller relationships may require enhanced documentation of authorization to use transmitted identification information.

Litigation Risk Considerations: Consumer advocacy groups, including the National Consumer Law Center, have opposed the TCPA rollback provisions, warning that elimination of internal DNC rules and abandonment restrictions could increase consumer harm and create "unstoppable robocalls.” This advocacy may influence Congressional attention to these proposals or may presage aggressive litigation strategies attempting to establish common law or state law analogs to the federal protections the FCC proposes to eliminate.

Sellers and telemarketing service providers should also anticipate that state attorneys general may scrutinize these rule changes or that plaintiffs' bar may seek to characterize eliminated federal requirements as establishing floor standards while state laws provide additional protections.

Lead Generation and Affiliate Networks: The requirement to verify caller ID information creates specific challenges for lead generation networks and affiliate marketers who connect consumers with sellers. Each link in the chain must be able to verify that transmitted identity information is accurate. Reseller relationships will require enhanced agreements specifying who bears responsibility for identity verification and how information will be transmitted downstream.

Immediate Next Steps and Industry Positioning

Within the next few weeks, the FCC will publish the notice in the Federal Register, triggering the 30-day comment period (and 60-day reply comment period) for public input on specific proposals. The FNPRM identifies CG Docket Nos. 17-59, 02-278, and 25-307, and WC Docket No. 17-97 as the governing dockets.

The comment period following Federal Register publication will be crucial for stakeholders. Telecommunications providers should prepare detailed comments addressing implementation timelines, technical feasibility for non-IP networks, cost implications, and interoperability requirements across carrier networks. Marketing industry stakeholders should similarly submit detailed comments on compliance obligations, particularly regarding the scope of "reasonable" verification measures for caller identity information.

The opposing positions are already becoming clear. Consumer advocacy groups and state attorneys general are likely to oppose elimination of internal DNC and abandonment rules, potentially filing negative comments or seeking to preserve portions of existing protections. Telecommunications industry participants broadly support streamlining existing requirements but will likely seek extended implementation periods and technical flexibility. Branded calling solution vendors have positioned themselves to benefit from the shift toward verified caller identity information and RCD-based solutions.

The ultimate shape of the final rules will depend substantially on the quality of stakeholder input during the notice-and-comment period and whether the FCC's regulatory direction aligns with Congressional oversight or state-level consumer protection statutes that may establish parallel protections for consumers.