Landmark Supreme Court Decision Reshapes TCPA Litigation Landscape

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark 6-3 decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation that fundamentally alters the relationship between federal district courts and federal agency interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). This ruling marks a pivotal shift in administrative law and promises to significantly impact how companies navigate TCPA compliance and litigation moving forward.

The McLaughlin Case

The McLaughlin case originated from a seemingly routine TCPA dispute involving unsolicited fax advertisements. Throughout 2009 and 2010, McKesson Corporation caused promotional faxes to be sent to various medical practices, including McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, which in 2014 filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the TCPA, as the unsolicited advertisements apparently lacked the required opt-out notices.

The case took a dramatic turn in 2019 when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued the Amerifactors order, which interpreted the TCPA to exclude "online fax services" from the definition of "telephone facsimile machine." This ruling effectively meant that faxes received through online services (which arrive as email attachments rather than printed documents) would not be covered by the TCPA's restrictions.

The offending faxes in McLaughlin were received via an online service, so in accordance with Ninth Circuit precedent that FCC final orders are binding under the Hobbs Act, the district court deemed the Amerifactors order authoritative and granted summary judgment to the defendant on claims involving online fax services. The court then decertified the class, leaving McLaughlin with claims for only 12 faxes received on traditional machines and damages of just $6,000.

The plaintiff appealed, arguing the Hobbs Act did not require district courts to adopt FCC interpretations in enforcement cases.

The Supreme Court's Groundbreaking Decision

The Hobbs Act grants courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review FCC orders pre-enforcement (e.g., challenges filed within 60 days of an order). However, in a majority opinion delivered by Justice Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court held that "the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency's interpretation of a statute."

The Court emphasized that district courts must independently determine the law's meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency's interpretation.

Practical Implications for Companies Facing TCPA Litigation

Renewed Challenges to FCC Interpretations: The McLaughlin decision immediately opens the door for companies to challenge FCC interpretations that have long been considered settled law. Defendants can now argue in district courts that various FCC orders interpreting the TCPA are incorrect, potentially including:

• The definition of "telephone facsimile machine" and whether it includes online fax services.
• Prior express written consent requirements.
• Automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) definitions.
• Text messaging regulations.

Impact on Class Action Certification: The ruling will likely have a significant effect on TCPA class action dynamics. Companies defending against TCPA class actions can now argue that FCC interpretations should not be binding, potentially leading to:

• Decertification of existing classes based on FCC orders.
• Challenges to class definitions that rely on FCC interpretations.
• More individualized inquiries about how communications were received.

Long-Term Compliance Considerations

Increased Litigation Volume and Complexity: The McLaughlin decision is expected to fuel a surge in TCPA litigation as plaintiffs' attorneys seek to relitigate issues previously settled by FCC orders. Companies should prepare for increased filing costs and defense expenses, as well as longer litigation timelines as courts independently interpret statutory provisions.

Inconsistent District Court Rulings: Without binding FCC interpretations, companies may face inconsistent rulings across different federal districts. This could result in conflicting interpretations of key TCPA provisions, followed by increased forum shopping by plaintiffs seeking favorable jurisdictions. It also complicates compliance, as companies will likely need to adopt different compliance strategies for various jurisdictions.

TCPA Litigation: Sector-Specific Impacts

Healthcare and Professional Services: The McLaughlin decision particularly affects healthcare providers and professional services that still rely heavily on fax communications. The ruling on online fax services could significantly expand or contract liability depending on how individual courts interpret the TCPA's definition of "telephone facsimile machine."

Financial Services and Debt Collection: Financial institutions and debt collectors must reassess their communication strategies in light of potential challenges to FCC safe harbors and interpretations. The decision may affect consent requirements and calling time restrictions.

Technology and Telecommunications: Companies providing communication services may face renewed scrutiny regarding ATDS definitions and text messaging regulations, as district courts may interpret these provisions differently than the FCC.

Strategic Recommendations for Corporate Compliance

Companies should immediately review their compliance programs to identify reliance on FCC interpretations that may now be challengeable, and evaluate fax, text, and calling practices that may be affected by potential reinterpretation of TCPA provisions. They should also consider adopting programs that can accommodate varying judicial interpretations across jurisdictions and take the opportunity to strengthen consent collection and documentation processes to withstand increased scrutiny.

Looking Ahead: The Future of TCPA Enforcement

The McLaughlin decision represents more than just a victory for one chiropractic practice—it signals a fundamental shift toward judicial independence in interpreting consumer protection statutes. TCPA litigation has already surged to record levels in 2025, with over 500 class action lawsuits filed in the first quarter alone, companies face an increasingly complex regulatory landscape.

The ruling also aligns with broader Supreme Court trends away from agency deference, following the Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that overturned Chevron deference. This pattern suggests continued judicial skepticism toward automatic acceptance of agency interpretations across various regulatory contexts.

Companies must now navigate a world where FCC interpretations serve as persuasive rather than binding authority, requiring more sophisticated legal analysis and flexible compliance strategies. Those that adapt quickly to this new reality will be best positioned to manage the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

The full impact of this decision will unfold over the coming months and years as district courts begin independently interpreting TCPA provisions and new litigation strategies emerge. What remains clear is that the era of automatic deference to FCC TCPA interpretations has ended, ushering in a new chapter of judicial independence that will reshape consumer protection law for years to come.