FCC Reverses Precedent, Rules that Government Contractors Are Subject to the TCPA
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.21.20
In a ruling issued last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) overturned precedent from 2016, ruling that federal, state, and local government contractors are subject to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and therefore cannot make TCPA-prohibited robocalls on behalf of the government.
The TCPA restricts certain calls made by “any person.” In a 2016 ruling, the FCC declared that the term “person” does not include the federal government and that therefore the TCPA’s restrictions do not apply to calls made by the federal government. The FCC extended this interpretation to cover calls made by contractors acting as agents of the federal government in accordance with the federal common law of agency.
On reconsideration, the FCC has now reversed its 2016 ruling, ruling that:
- A federal government contractor making calls on behalf of the government is a “person” subject to the TCPA;
- A state government caller making calls in the conduct of official government business is not a “person” subject to the TCPA;
- A state or local government contractor, like a federal government contractor, is a “person” and is therefore subject to the TCPA; and
- A local government, unlike a federal or state government, is a “person” subject to the TCPA.
Given that the TCPA is fertile ground for litigants and plaintiffs’ attorneys due to the potential damages of $500 to $1,500 per violation, government contractors should review their calling practices to analyze the impact of this recent FCC ruling.
Contacts
Partner and Crowell Global Advisors Senior Director
- Washington, D.C.
- D | +1.202.624.2698
- Washington, D.C. (CGA)
- D | +1 202.624.2500
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
