FCC Sept 30 vote rewrites text opt-out rules

The FCC TCPA revocation of consent rule change up for a vote on September 30, 2026 would let a Las Vegas dental office, dealership service department or law firm treat a STOP reply to one type of informational text as stopping only that type, and would let it name one exclusive channel for opt-outs. If adopted, it takes effect 30 days after Federal Register publication, replacing the January 31, 2027 date the FCC set in January 2026. The ten business day processing deadline stays. That is what the FCC's September 9, 2026 draft order, FCC-CIRC 2609-05 says, and the FCC itself notes the draft is not official action and may change.

This is not legal advice. It is a plain reading of two FCC documents so you know what to ask your counsel and what to check in your texting setup before the vote. If you read our post on texting customers back under Nevada and federal rules, this is the update.

The FCC TCPA revocation of consent rule change, in plain terms

In February 2024 the FCC released its TCPA Consent Order on how consumers take back consent to robocalls and robotexts. One requirement drew most of the objections: if a customer revoked consent in response to one informational message, such as an appointment reminder, the business had to treat that as revoking consent to every future robocall and robotext from it, including unrelated matters. Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Order DA 26-12, released January 6, 2026, recites how that piece has been held back. The order's effective date was April 11, 2025. An April 7, 2025 waiver pushed the revoke-all piece to April 11, 2026. DA 26-12 pushed it to January 31, 2027 while the FCC worked through an October 29, 2025 Further Notice on modifying it.

The September 9, 2026 draft is more than another delay. It would amend the rule so a business may read a revocation as applying only to the specific category of informational robocalls the customer was responding to. It would let a business designate an exclusive means for revoking consent. It also modifies the consent exemption for financial institutions sending fraud alerts and delegates to the Bureau a review of the TCPA rules for clarity. This post stays on the first two.

Two definitions decide whether any of this touches you. In the draft, a robocall is any call or text sent with an autodialer, or any call using an artificial or prerecorded voice. An informational robocall is one that contains no advertisement and is not telemarketing under 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(1) and (13). A plain appointment reminder, a repair status update, or a hearing date notice is the typical informational message. A reminder that closes with a coupon is much harder to call informational.

The rule today versus the draft, row by row

Column A is the rule as the 2024 order adopted it and DA 26-12 waived it. Column B is the draft text circulated September 9, 2026 for the September 30 meeting.

The marketing row is our reading. DA 26-12 says its waiver covers only the revoke-all requirement and alters no other rule on revocation, and the draft's narrowing names informational robocalls only. The four Further Notice questions trace to a June 30, 2026 joint filing by the American Bankers Association, the National Consumer Law Center and ACA International, according to the draft.

A stop reply to a billing text may no longer end appointment reminders

Take a dental office that texts patients three kinds of messages from its practice software: appointment reminders, balance-due notices, and a promotional newsletter. The newsletter is marketing. The reminders and balance notices are informational. A patient irritated by a balance notice replies STOP.

Under the revoke-all piece, if it ever took effect, that STOP would end the reminders too. Under the draft, the office may treat the STOP as covering only balance notices, the category the patient answered, and keep sending the reminder the patient still wants. Note the word may: the draft permits the narrower reading, it does not require it, and honoring a broader opt-out is always safe.

The difference shows up in no-shows. Assume a practice with 1,200 active patients, and assume 2 percent of them opt out of balance texts in a year: 1,200 times 0.02 is 24 patients. Under revoke-all those 24 also stop getting reminders. Our no-show math post shows how to price one missed slot; multiply by however many of those 24 would miss without a reminder. These are illustrative assumptions, not measured rates.

The catch: you only get the benefit if your system knows which category a message belonged to. If every text leaves one number under one consent flag, a STOP has nothing narrower to attach to. It is the same thing we check when setting up appointment scheduling and reminders: separate categories, separate logs, and a record of which message the customer replied to.

Naming one opt-out channel only protects you if you actually name it

Today a customer can revoke by any reasonable method, and the draft keeps that default. What it adds is an option to designate an exclusive means. The draft's paragraph (a)(11) is explicit that a business that does not designate one must keep processing revocations made by any reasonable means. Silence keeps you on the old rule.

Consider a single-location dealership service department. Customers revoke in at least four ways: replying to the service text, telling the advisor at the write-up lane, calling the service line, and emailing the manager. Every one counts now, and every one has to reach the texting system inside ten business days. The advisor who hears please stop texting me and forgets to log it is the failure point. So is the phone: an opt-out spoken to whoever answers, a person or an AI receptionist, has to land in the same suppression list as a typed STOP.

Designating one channel could shrink that surface. Before you pick, read the Further Notice: it asks whether to require two-way texting so consumers can revoke by reply, and whether to require a way to revoke everything at once. Our reading is that reply-by-text is the channel least likely to be undone by the next round, because it is the one the FCC is asking about requiring.

The processing clock does not move. As a worked date, a request received Thursday, December 3, 2026 reaches ten business days on Thursday, December 17, 2026, counting weekdays only with no holiday in between. Treat that as the outside edge, not the target.

The effective date depends on the Federal Register, not January 31, 2027

If the Commission adopts the order on September 30, the amendments take effect 30 days after Federal Register publication and supersede the January 31, 2027 date. Publication dates are not predictable, so here are three scenarios, each on an assumed date.

Assume publication on Friday, October 30, 2026. The rules take effect Sunday, November 29, 2026, Further Notice comments are due that day, and replies are due Tuesday, December 29, 2026. Now assume publication on Tuesday, December 15, 2026. The rules take effect Thursday, January 14, 2027, still ahead of the old date.

The third scenario is where the conclusion flips. Thirty days before January 31, 2027 is January 1, 2027. If publication lands after January 1, the new rule arrives after January 31, and unless the FCC extends the waiver again, revoke-all could briefly apply in the gap. The same holds if the vote slips or the text changes. That is the case for configuring categories now: categorized consent works under either rule, while one consent flag only works under the new one, and only if it arrives on time.

Law firms texting case updates have the most categories to sort

A small Las Vegas personal injury or family law firm often sends more kinds of automated messages than a dental office: hearing reminders, document requests, payment plan reminders, and follow-ups to people who called but have not signed. The first three are usually informational. The last is the risky one, because a message urging someone to sign a retainer can read as a solicitation, and the draft's narrowing applies only to messages with no advertisement and no telemarketing.

Under the draft, a client who replies STOP to payment reminders could keep getting hearing reminders, which keeps cases on schedule. For intake follow-ups, plan as if an opt-out is total. We cover how intake texting fits a firm's phone workflow on our law firm automation page. Firms also tend to have the most opt-out channels, since clients tell paralegals, email attorneys, or mention it on calls. Without a designated channel, every one of those is a valid revocation with the ten business day clock running.

Where this reading does not hold

Start with the definition. These rules govern robocalls: texts sent with an autodialer and calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice. If your staff type every text one at a time, whether the rules reach you depends on how your equipment works, and that question belongs to your lawyer. This post assumes the common case of a scheduling or CRM platform sending reminders in bulk.

Marketing texts get nothing here. If most of what you send is promotional, the draft does not loosen your obligations, and the Further Notice could add a required way to revoke everything.

The document is a draft. The FCC marks it as circulated for tentative consideration, not official action, and subject to change. Any row in the table could move by September 30.

State law sits on top. This post reads two federal documents only, and Nevada and California rules can impose separate duties, as covered in our post on California callers and Nevada consent. The fraud-alert change affects financial institutions, and this post does not cover it.

Questions owners ask

Does the FCC's new opt-out rule take effect on January 31, 2027?

Not if the draft is adopted and published in time. The draft says its amendments take effect 30 days after Federal Register publication and replace the January 31, 2027 date set in DA 26-12. If publication slips past January 1, 2027, the old date arrives first unless the FCC extends the waiver again. Nothing is official until the Commission votes.

If a customer texts STOP to one reminder, do I have to stop all texts?

Today the revoke-all piece is waived until January 31, 2027. Under the draft, you may treat a STOP on an informational message as covering only that category, so appointment reminders can continue after a patient opts out of billing notices. Marketing texts get no such narrowing, and you can always choose to honor a broader opt-out.

How long do I have to process a text opt-out request?

A reasonable time, no more than ten business days from receipt, under both the current rule and the draft. The Further Notice asks whether to revisit that timeframe, so it could tighten later. If you designate an exclusive opt-out channel, the clock runs on requests made through it; if you do not, it runs on requests made by any reasonable means.

What to do this week

None of these steps needs the final rule, and all of them hold up whichever version arrives.

1. Inventory your automated messages. List every text and prerecorded call your systems send, mark each informational or marketing, and send the list to counsel with the two FCC documents linked above.
2. Check whether your platform separates categories. Log in to your texting or scheduling tool and see whether consent and opt-outs are stored per message type or as one flag. If it is one flag, ask the vendor about categories now.
3. Map every place a customer can say stop. Write down each channel, from reply texts to the counter to the phone line, and who moves each request into the suppression list. Time the slowest path against the ten business day limit.

Then watch the Federal Register after September 30: publication plus 30 days is your real deadline.

If you want a second set of eyes on how your reminders and phone line handle opt-outs, our free 15-minute audit covers it, starting from the AI receptionist page.