4
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
Retailers face a new compliance risk in Short Message Service (“SMS”) marketing due to the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) revocation of consent rule that took effect in April 2025. Under the FCC’s rules implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), texts are treated as calls and carry statutory damages of at least $500 per message. The FCC now prohibits businesses from specifying an exclusive means for consumers to opt-out of receiving messages, and instead, states that businesses must honor opt outs communicated through any reasonable channel, which increases the chance of missed revocations and invites lawsuits.
The TCPA Framework
The TCPA is a federal telemarketing statute that regulates consumer outreach across several dimensions—including calling time restrictions, dialing technology, caller identification, internal do-not-call procedures, prohibitions relating to certain called parties, and consent. For years, text messages have been treated as calls under the FCC’s rules implementing the TCPA, which meant marketing texts must satisfy the statute’s consent and do-not-call requirements. The statutory damages framework can be severe. Violations can lead to $500 per message in statutory damages, or $1,500 per message if the violation is willful or knowing. This bounty scheme has encouraged class action filings.
A core feature of the statute and the rules is the right of consumers to revoke consent, which businesses must honor to cease further outreach. To make revocation manageable at scale, many programs historically prescribed standardized opt out pathways—such as clearly instructing recipients to reply “STOP,” or by specifying opt out mechanisms in terms or program disclosures, so consumers have predictable steps and businesses can operationalize suppression reliably.
The New FCC Revocation Rule
Effective April 2025, the FCC adopted a revocation of consent rule that expands how consumers may opt out. Under the rule, a consumer will be deemed to have revoked consent if they reply to a text with “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe,” or a substantially similar standard response. However, the rule prohibits businesses from designating an exclusive opt out method; instead, the rule requires honoring revocations expressed in any reasonable manner. For reply texts that use alternative or nonstandard language, the reasonableness of the revocation is assessed under a totality of the circumstances test. If a dispute arises, the sender may bear the burden of showing that the consumer’s phrasing was not a reasonable method of revocation.
The FCC also codified a limited ability to send a one-time confirmation or clarification message in response to an opt out. That message must be nonmarketing, sent promptly within five minutes, and must not include persuasion or promotional content. Programs that do not support reply texts face additional disclosure obligations. If a program cannot process two-way texting, each message must clearly disclose that limitation and provide reasonable alternative methods to revoke consent, such as a phone number or a URL.
Operational Challenges and Why Risk Is Rising
The rule’s rejection of exclusive, standardized opt out pathways introduces significant complexity for SMS programs. Retailers typically rely on keyword lists and platform recognition logic to capture STOP style replies and to suppress further sends. Under the new rules, programs must also be prepared to process nonstandard revocations expressed in natural language. Phrases such as “no more texts,” “remove me,” and other formulations that depart from the canonical keywords may still constitute valid revocations depending on the circumstances. The sender bears the burden to prove that an alternative phrase was not a reasonable method of revocation.
The FCC’s allocation of responsibility invites opportunistic litigation. Plaintiffs may ignore explicit reply STOP instructions and instead send deliberately nonconforming messages that some platforms will not recognize, then allege that messaging continued after a valid revocation. Indeed, complaints filed in court already reflect this tactic. In a recent complaint in federal court in Georgia, for example, the plaintiff enrolled in an SMS program and received an immediate welcome text which instructed him to reply STOP to cancel. Less than one minute later, and despite the clear opt-out instructions, the plaintiff responded, “Please cease!” The company’s platform did not process the nonconforming phrasing as an opt out, and the company unknowingly continued to send messages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff allowed a significant volume of messages to accrue and then sued.
Litigation Posture and Areas of Uncertainty
As we previously discussed, the Supreme Court recently made clear that district courts adjudicating private TCPA cases are not required to follow the FCC’s interpretations. Courts should apply ordinary statutory interpretation principles and afford appropriate respect to the agency’s views without treating them as controlling. This posture creates two threshold questions that are likely to drive litigation strategy over the coming months and years. One question is whether the FCC had authority to limit how companies manage and process revocation and to impose a reasonable means standard with per se triggers and shifting burdens. Another question is whether, and to what extent, the FCC may regulate text messages as calls under the TCPA in the first place.
Until these questions are answered, businesses should anticipate that enterprising plaintiffs will test the limits of what kinds of opt out requests are “reasonable.” Companies should plan to defend claims under the uncertainty created by the FCC rule, while preserving arguments regarding the limits of agency authority and the proper construction of the statute.
Practical Implementation for Retail SMS Programs
Retailers should take the opportunity to reduce the number of litigable events and to strengthen their evidentiary position if they are sued. A practical starting point is to expand keyword libraries and routing logic beyond the FCC’s enumerated terms. Programs should add synonyms and natural language variants commonly used by their customers to disengage. Where available, platforms should be tuned to use natural language processing and artificial intelligence to detect negative intent and to escalate ambiguous replies for human review. These models should be tested and calibrated using real message data to minimize false negatives that would allow continued messaging after a valid revocation.
Businesses should also consider regular, manual review of nonstandard replies that are not recognized by automation. Confirmation messaging, when used, should be tightened. The one-time confirmation text should be sent promptly and include no marketing content. If a consumer sends a nonconforming reply, like a “Please cease!” message, the company should send a short message that asks to clarify the consumer’s request. If the consumer does not respond to clarify with a designated keyword within a short time, then the consumer’s non-response should be treated as an opt out.
Conclusion
For retailers, the FCC’s rule makes honoring consumers’ requests to stop receiving messages more difficult and invites opportunistic litigation. Future developments in case law may eventually narrow or recalibrate aspects of the revocation rule, but uncertainty is not a defense to current claims. A pragmatic, well documented compliance posture is the best way to navigate the interim period and to minimize risk.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2025 National Law Forum, LLC
Find Your Next Job !
Retailers face a new compliance risk in Short Message Service (“SMS”) marketing due to the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) revocation of consent rule that took effect in April 2025. Under the FCC’s rules implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), texts are treated as calls and carry statutory damages of at least $500 per message. The FCC now prohibits businesses from specifying an exclusive means for consumers to opt-out of receiving messages, and instead, states that businesses must honor opt outs communicated through any reasonable channel, which increases the chance of missed revocations and invites lawsuits.
The TCPA Framework
The TCPA is a federal telemarketing statute that regulates consumer outreach across several dimensions—including calling time restrictions, dialing technology, caller identification, internal do-not-call procedures, prohibitions relating to certain called parties, and consent. For years, text messages have been treated as calls under the FCC’s rules implementing the TCPA, which meant marketing texts must satisfy the statute’s consent and do-not-call requirements. The statutory damages framework can be severe. Violations can lead to $500 per message in statutory damages, or $1,500 per message if the violation is willful or knowing. This bounty scheme has encouraged class action filings.
A core feature of the statute and the rules is the right of consumers to revoke consent, which businesses must honor to cease further outreach. To make revocation manageable at scale, many programs historically prescribed standardized opt out pathways—such as clearly instructing recipients to reply “STOP,” or by specifying opt out mechanisms in terms or program disclosures, so consumers have predictable steps and businesses can operationalize suppression reliably.
The New FCC Revocation Rule
Effective April 2025, the FCC adopted a revocation of consent rule that expands how consumers may opt out. Under the rule, a consumer will be deemed to have revoked consent if they reply to a text with “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe,” or a substantially similar standard response. However, the rule prohibits businesses from designating an exclusive opt out method; instead, the rule requires honoring revocations expressed in any reasonable manner. For reply texts that use alternative or nonstandard language, the reasonableness of the revocation is assessed under a totality of the circumstances test. If a dispute arises, the sender may bear the burden of showing that the consumer’s phrasing was not a reasonable method of revocation.
The FCC also codified a limited ability to send a one-time confirmation or clarification message in response to an opt out. That message must be nonmarketing, sent promptly within five minutes, and must not include persuasion or promotional content. Programs that do not support reply texts face additional disclosure obligations. If a program cannot process two-way texting, each message must clearly disclose that limitation and provide reasonable alternative methods to revoke consent, such as a phone number or a URL.
Operational Challenges and Why Risk Is Rising
The rule’s rejection of exclusive, standardized opt out pathways introduces significant complexity for SMS programs. Retailers typically rely on keyword lists and platform recognition logic to capture STOP style replies and to suppress further sends. Under the new rules, programs must also be prepared to process nonstandard revocations expressed in natural language. Phrases such as “no more texts,” “remove me,” and other formulations that depart from the canonical keywords may still constitute valid revocations depending on the circumstances. The sender bears the burden to prove that an alternative phrase was not a reasonable method of revocation.
The FCC’s allocation of responsibility invites opportunistic litigation. Plaintiffs may ignore explicit reply STOP instructions and instead send deliberately nonconforming messages that some platforms will not recognize, then allege that messaging continued after a valid revocation. Indeed, complaints filed in court already reflect this tactic. In a recent complaint in federal court in Georgia, for example, the plaintiff enrolled in an SMS program and received an immediate welcome text which instructed him to reply STOP to cancel. Less than one minute later, and despite the clear opt-out instructions, the plaintiff responded, “Please cease!” The company’s platform did not process the nonconforming phrasing as an opt out, and the company unknowingly continued to send messages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff allowed a significant volume of messages to accrue and then sued.
Litigation Posture and Areas of Uncertainty
As we previously discussed, the Supreme Court recently made clear that district courts adjudicating private TCPA cases are not required to follow the FCC’s interpretations. Courts should apply ordinary statutory interpretation principles and afford appropriate respect to the agency’s views without treating them as controlling. This posture creates two threshold questions that are likely to drive litigation strategy over the coming months and years. One question is whether the FCC had authority to limit how companies manage and process revocation and to impose a reasonable means standard with per se triggers and shifting burdens. Another question is whether, and to what extent, the FCC may regulate text messages as calls under the TCPA in the first place.
Until these questions are answered, businesses should anticipate that enterprising plaintiffs will test the limits of what kinds of opt out requests are “reasonable.” Companies should plan to defend claims under the uncertainty created by the FCC rule, while preserving arguments regarding the limits of agency authority and the proper construction of the statute.
Practical Implementation for Retail SMS Programs
Retailers should take the opportunity to reduce the number of litigable events and to strengthen their evidentiary position if they are sued. A practical starting point is to expand keyword libraries and routing logic beyond the FCC’s enumerated terms. Programs should add synonyms and natural language variants commonly used by their customers to disengage. Where available, platforms should be tuned to use natural language processing and artificial intelligence to detect negative intent and to escalate ambiguous replies for human review. These models should be tested and calibrated using real message data to minimize false negatives that would allow continued messaging after a valid revocation.
Businesses should also consider regular, manual review of nonstandard replies that are not recognized by automation. Confirmation messaging, when used, should be tightened. The one-time confirmation text should be sent promptly and include no marketing content. If a consumer sends a nonconforming reply, like a “Please cease!” message, the company should send a short message that asks to clarify the consumer’s request. If the consumer does not respond to clarify with a designated keyword within a short time, then the consumer’s non-response should be treated as an opt out.
Conclusion
For retailers, the FCC’s rule makes honoring consumers’ requests to stop receiving messages more difficult and invites opportunistic litigation. Future developments in case law may eventually narrow or recalibrate aspects of the revocation rule, but uncertainty is not a defense to current claims. A pragmatic, well documented compliance posture is the best way to navigate the interim period and to minimize risk.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2025 National Law Forum, LLC