The Supreme Court released a decision today that fundamentally changes how federal courts handle TCPA litigation. For decades, when businesses faced TCPA lawsuits in federal court, judges typically accepted the FCC’s interpretation of what the law means as the final word based on an accepted view of the Hobbs Act.[1] The Court’s ruling in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. breaks this pattern, empowering federal district courts to independently decide what the TCPA actually requires—even when their interpretation conflicts with the FCC’s official position in enforcement proceedings.[2] The Supreme Court summarized its findings as to enforcement actions involving federal statutes administered by agencies subject to the Hobbs Act.
“Fundamental principles of administrative law establish the proper default rule: In an enforcement proceeding, a district court must independently determine for itself whether the agency’s interpretation of a statute is correct. District courts are not bound by the agency’s interpretation, but instead must determine the meaning of the law under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation.” McLaughlin at 7-8.
This shift creates both new opportunities to challenge unfavorable agency rulings and new uncertainties about how courts will interpret critical TCPA provisions that businesses have long relied upon for compliance guidance.
Turning to the TCPA aspects, in a 6-3 ruling authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court held that the federal Hobbs Act does not require district courts to defer to Federal Communications Commission interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in enforcement proceedings. This decision empowers district courts to conduct independent statutory analysis while giving “appropriate respect” to agency interpretations—a standard that falls well short of binding deference.
Background
The case originated from a dispute over the FCC’s 2019 determination that online faxes fall outside TCPA coverage. McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates challenged this interpretation in a class action against McKesson Corporation, but both the district court and Ninth Circuit deferred to the FCC’s ruling under the Hobbs Act. The Supreme Court’s reversal fundamentally alters this dynamic.
Practical Implications for Business
Companies facing TCPA litigation can no longer rely on favorable FCC interpretations as automatic shields in federal court. But if they are involved in an enforcement proceeding, they have an additional opportunity to challenge unfavorable FCC interpretations,[3] recognizing, however, that the Supreme Court directed district courts to afford “appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation.” District courts will now independently assess whether specific communications fall under TCPA coverage, potentially leading to:
- Inconsistent rulings across federal districts on identical FCC interpretations
- Extended litigation timelines as courts conduct de novo statutory analysis
- Increased uncertainty in compliance planning based on FCC guidance
Organizations may wish to reassess their TCPA compliance programs in light of this decision. While FCC interpretations remain influential, they no longer provide the same level of regulatory certainty in federal enforcement actions. Companies may need to adopt more conservative compliance approaches where FCC guidance previously provided clear safe harbors.
Impact on Ongoing and Future Litigation
This ruling will likely trigger renewed challenges to various FCC TCPA interpretations, including determinations regarding:
- Automated dialing system definitions
- Consent requirements and revocation procedures
- Business-to-business communication exemptions
- Fax transmission regulations
This decision continues the Supreme Court’s recent trend of limiting agency deference following the Loper Bright ruling that eliminated Chevron deference. The combined effect significantly reduces the binding authority of federal agency interpretations across all regulatory contexts.
Enhanced TCPA Litigation Capabilities Through Strategic Partnership
The CommLaw Group’s recent strategic association with Roth Jackson Gibbons Condlin, PLC significantly strengthens our ability to assist clients navigating this new TCPA landscape. This partnership brings together:
- Premier TCPA Class Action Defense Expertise: Roth Jackson’s distinguished litigation team specializes in defending against TCPA claims and navigating complex enterprise communications challenges—expertise that becomes even more critical as district courts gain expanded authority to reinterpret FCC determinations.
- Enhanced Robocall Mitigation Response: Our combined capabilities include developing and refining KYC and robocall mitigation strategies, as well as defending against FTC and state attorney general investigations—particularly important as regulatory interpretations become less predictable.
- Omnichannel Communications Advocacy: Through the Enterprise Communications Advocacy Coalition, our partnership provides strategic guidance to help businesses navigate the evolving regulatory landscape that this Supreme Court decision will undoubtedly reshape.
This alliance positions us to offer clients both the regulatory expertise to understand FCC interpretations and the litigation prowess to defend those interpretations when challenged in federal court.
Recommended Actions
Short-Term Steps:
- Comprehensive Compliance Audit – Review existing TCPA policies that rely heavily on FCC interpretations for legal justification
- Litigation Strategy Assessment – Evaluate whether this decision creates opportunities to challenge previously binding FCC determinations in ongoing cases
- Enhanced Legal Risk Analysis – Recalibrate litigation risk models to account for increased judicial scrutiny of FCC positions
Long-Term Considerations:
- Monitor federal district court decisions for emerging trends in TCPA interpretation
- Develop robust defense strategies that can withstand independent judicial review
- Consider more conservative compliance approaches in areas where FCC guidance previously provided certainty
- Implement flexible compliance frameworks that can adapt to varying judicial interpretations
The McLaughlin decision fundamentally alters the TCPA compliance and litigation landscape. Success in this new environment requires both deep regulatory knowledge and sophisticated litigation capabilities—precisely the combination our strategic partnership with Roth Jackson provides.
CONTACT US
For questions regarding this development and its impact on your TCPA compliance program or ongoing litigation, please contact the responsible attorney assigned to your account or Susan Duarte at sfd@commlawgroup.com or (703) 714-1318.
[1] The Hobbs Act, passed in 1950, limits pre-enforcement-related review of the FCC and certain other agency actions to the courts of appeal and not federal district courts. For example, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that “the district court [below] lacked the power to consider in any way the validity of the 2008 FCC Ruling and also erred in concluding that the FCC’s interpretation did not control the disposition of the case. Mais, v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., 768 F.3d 1110, 1113 (11th Cir. 2014).
[2] In McLauglin, the Supreme Court explained enforcement proceedings as follows, “As we use the term here, [enforcement proceedings] includes both (i) enforcement actions brought by the Government and (ii) civil suits brought by private parties alleging a defendant’s violation of a statute, regulation, or order. McLauglin, slip op. at 6, n.1. Note that (i) includes enforcement actions brought by a state attorney general.
[3]Strategy based on McLaughlin must also consider the Supreme Court’s 2024 holding in Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 144 S.Ct. 2440 (2024), where the Court held that the six-year statute of limitations for suits brought against United States does not begin to run in a suit brought under Administrative Procedure Act until plaintiff is injured by final agency action and not publication of the regulation at issue. Thus, a defendant in a TCPA enforcement proceeding that was not operating when the FCC’s interpretation of a regulation that was released more than six years ago can challenge the interpretation in the enforcement proceeding so long as the defendant challenges the interpretation within six years of the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant violated the FCC’s regulation as interpreted. This could be a valuable tool in defense of a TCPA enforcement action brought by a state attorney general.
