Protecting American Consumers from Robocalls Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 15, 2026
Bottom line
The bill significantly strengthens consumer protections against unwanted robocalls by expanding coverage, making it easier to sue violators, and broadening the legal definition of illegal robocalling technology.
What it actually does
This bill expands the scope of the Do Not Call rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) to include all telephone subscribers, not just residential ones. It also strengthens the private right of action for violations by allowing lawsuits for a single unwanted call and removing discretionary language for damages. Furthermore, it broadens the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) to include systems that dial from a list of numbers and operate successively without human intervention, aiming to close loopholes exploited by modern robocallers.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is crucial for combating the pervasive issue of unwanted robocalls, which harass consumers and businesses alike, disrupt daily life, and erode trust in telecommunications. They contend that expanding Do Not Call protections to all subscribers, strengthening enforcement, and clarifying the ATDS definition will close loopholes exploited by robocallers, restoring peace to telephone lines and protecting privacy.
Opponents contend
Opponents, particularly from industries relying on automated outreach such as telemarketing, debt collection, and political campaigns, might argue that broadening the ATDS definition could stifle legitimate communications and lead to an excessive number of lawsuits. They may also contend that expanding the Do Not Call registry to businesses could impede essential business-to-business communications, creating undue burdens and legal risks for companies.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(a)(1), (2) amending 47 U.S.C. 227(c)(1), (3)
Expansion of Do Not Call Registry Scope to All Subscribers
This provision removes the word "residential" from the sections of the Communications Act that establish the Do Not Call registry and related rules. This change means that the protections against unwanted telemarketing calls, which previously applied only to residential telephone subscribers, would now extend to all telephone subscribers, including businesses, government entities, and other non-residential lines.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that businesses, like individuals, are inundated with unwanted calls that disrupt operations, waste employee time, and reduce productivity. Extending Do Not Call protections to all subscribers is a logical and necessary step to reduce overall call volume and protect the efficiency of all telephone lines.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that business-to-business (B2B) communications are distinct from residential calls and that expanding the Do Not Call list to include businesses could hinder legitimate sales, networking, and customer service activities, potentially impacting economic growth and efficient communication channels.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to reduce unwanted calls and enhance productivity for businesses against potential impacts on legitimate B2B marketing and outreach efforts, which may now face additional regulatory hurdles.
Section 2(a)(3) amending 47 U.S.C. 227(c)(5)
Enhanced Private Right of Action for Do Not Call Violations
This provision modifies the private right of action for Do Not Call violations in two key ways. First, it lowers the threshold for a lawsuit from receiving "more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity" to just "a telephone call by or on behalf of an entity." Second, it removes the phrase "up to" from the damages clause, implying that statutory damages for violations are mandatory rather than discretionary.
Section 3 amending 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(1)
Clarification of Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) Definition
This provision amends the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) under the TCPA. It clarifies that an ATDS includes equipment that uses "a list of telephone numbers" in addition to a "random or sequential number generator" to store or produce numbers. It also adds that the system must have the capacity "to dial such numbers successively without human intervention." This aims to broaden the definition to cover modern dialing technologies, addressing recent court rulings that narrowed the ATDS scope.