Stop Spam Calls Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill mandates the FCC to solidify a stricter definition of "prior express written consent" for telemarketing, aiming to enhance consumer protection against unwanted calls and texts, with an 18-month implementation delay.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to revise its regulations concerning the definition of "prior express written consent" within one year of the bill's enactment. Specifically, the FCC must update section 64.1200(f)(9) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, to match the definition established in its January 26, 2024, final rule regarding unlawful text messages and robocalls. The revised definition will take effect 18 months after the bill's enactment.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this legislation is crucial for strengthening consumer protections against the pervasive problem of unwanted robocalls and spam texts. By codifying a clear and robust definition of "prior express written consent," the bill eliminates ambiguity and makes it harder for telemarketers to exploit loopholes, thereby empowering consumers and reinforcing the FCC's ability to enforce the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that while the intent to curb spam is laudable, imposing stricter consent requirements could unduly burden legitimate businesses that rely on telemarketing or text message outreach for customer engagement. They may argue that increased compliance costs and administrative hurdles could stifle communication channels and negatively impact economic activity without effectively deterring malicious actors.
The bill is exceptionally short and straightforward, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its core directive within minutes.
Section 2(a)
Mandate for FCC to Revise 'Prior Express Written Consent' Definition
This section requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to update its rules within one year to specifically define "prior express written consent." This definition must align with a final rule the FCC already published on January 26, 2024, which focused on combating unlawful text messages and robocalls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). The goal is to solidify the requirement for written consent before certain telemarketing calls or texts can be made.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision strengthens consumer protections against unwanted robocalls and spam texts by codifying a robust definition of "prior express written consent," making it harder for companies to claim implied consent. It ensures the FCC's prior regulatory action is enshrined in law, providing a clearer legal basis for enforcement.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision could impose undue burdens on legitimate businesses that rely on telemarketing or text message outreach for customer engagement, potentially stifling communication channels and increasing compliance costs without significantly deterring malicious actors.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for enhanced consumer privacy and protection against the operational flexibility and communication needs of businesses that engage in telemarketing or text message outreach.
Section 2(b)
Effective Date for Revised Consent Definition
This section sets a delayed effective date for the new "prior express written consent" definition. Businesses and telemarketers will have 18 months from the date this bill becomes law to adapt their practices and ensure compliance with the updated FCC regulations before they are enforced.
This section clarifies that the Act should not be interpreted to mean that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacked the authority to require prior express consent to be in writing before this bill's enactment.
Section 2(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to prevent unintended legal interpretations. It ensures that the act of codifying or clarifying a rule does not inadvertently undermine the agency's existing or historical authority on the matter.
Case for: Supporters argue this rule of construction is crucial for maintaining the FCC's existing regulatory authority and preventing potential legal challenges that might interpret the bill as limiting or defining the scope of past FCC powers. It provides legal certainty.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such a standard rule of construction, as it primarily serves to clarify legislative intent and protect existing legal frameworks. Some might argue it is redundant if the FCC's authority was already clear.
Estimated impact: Prevents potential legal challenges to the FCC's past and future enforcement actions related to consent requirements, thereby strengthening consumer protection efforts by preserving the agency's regulatory power.