A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

FCC rulings aim to boost consumer rights

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Phone calls from telemarketers can be downright annoying. Whether the calls are coming in during working hours or at the end of the workday, to a landline or a cellphone, these calls — especially after you have told them to stop calling — can become a real bother.

The Federal Communications Commission, frequently referred to as just the FCC, is the agency that regulates communications via wire, satellite, television, cable and radio. Recently, the commission provided clarity on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The idea is these clarifications will better protect consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls and text messages.

There are many perceived wins for consumers among these rulings, including the right to say “no” to calls. This means that if your telephone rings and it’s a telemarketer, if you tell them to stop calling you, the telemarketer must listen. Even if you were once OK with the calls, but have since changed your mind, by telling them to stop calling your number, you should no longer receive calls from this telemarketer.

Many telemarketers had also found a loophole in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act: Calling phone numbers that had been reassigned. However, with these rulings, it is now quite clear that a telemarketer must stop calling a reassigned number after one call.

The FCC also did rule that telephone providers can offer consumers robocall-blocking technology. Robocalling is when a company uses an autodialer to send a computerized pre-recording to a consumer. Telephone providers can now offer technology to consumers in order to prevent these robocalls from coming through, without the fear of legal repercussion. Whether or not all telephone providers will take advantage of this, though, is yet to be seen.

The hope, of course, is that these rulings lead to better protection for consumers, both in California and across the country. Prior to these rulings, the FCC reported receiving more than 215,000 complaints last year, all related to unwanted calls.

In cases, though, where it appears a telemarketer is trying to skirt these rules, consumers do have the option to pursue legal action by contacting an attorney who practices consumer rights.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.