What the McLaughlin Ruling Means for Outbound Compliance Strategy

A new era for robocall regulations

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. that fundamentally changes how robocall lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) will be interpreted and litigated.

This decision marks a pivotal shift—district courts are no longer required to follow FCC interpretations of the TCPA. Instead, federal judges across the country can now make their own determinations, even when the FCC has issued prior guidance.

Fragmented interpretations: The rise of jurisdiction-based compliance risk

Until now, businesses could largely rely on FCC rulings to define whether a dialing system was considered an “autodialer” or whether a mobile phone fell under Do Not Call protections. That’s no longer the case.

Courts may now diverge dramatically in how they define terms and apply restrictions under the TCPA. That means a company could be sued in one district but not another for using the same dialing system or campaign strategy.

This is a strategic inflection point. Businesses engaged in outbound calling and texting must reassess their compliance strategies across the board—not just follow federal guidelines and assume they’re protected. We always recommend seeking legal counsel.

Implications for outbound campaigns

Autodialer risk could vary by court

Before McLaughlin, courts followed FCC rules to decide if your system was an autodialer—and therefore subject to heightened TCPA regulation. Now, a dialing system’s status could vary by district, depending on how individual judges interpret the statute.

This is likely to push businesses toward more conservative configurations, especially for high-volume outreach.

For those seeking a safer path forward, Convoso offers solutions like CallCatalyst™, which enables manual dialing that helps maintain contact rates while minimizing compliance risk.

Are cell phones still “residential” numbers?

The FCC previously assumed that cell phones count as “residential” lines for purposes of the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry. That assumption is now under scrutiny.

Courts may begin to assess how a number is used—for business or personal purposes—rather than what type of device it is.

This could complicate lead targeting in B2B sales, where many prospects use mobile numbers for both business and personal use.

To be proactive, businesses can enrich lead data to better identify mobile business lines, particularly when targeting small business owners.

AI voice and agent compliance still demands consent

Some businesses may incorrectly assume that loosening FCC authority gives more freedom to use AI voice. 

While confusion has emerged in the wake of McLaughlin, experts at TCPAWorld stress that the TCPA still explicitly prohibits AI or prerecorded voice calls without express consent, regardless of how courts now treat FCC guidance.

The definition of “artificial voice” continues to evolve, but the underlying requirement for consent remains untouched—and arguably more vulnerable to judicial reinterpretation in AI-related lawsuits.

Breaking the “presumed consent" assumption

One of the most significant implications is the death of the prevalent assumption that by simply providing a phone number, the consumer has given consent to be contacted.

As highlighted by legal analysts at Troutman LLP, courts may now reject the presumption that simply providing a phone number implies consent, requiring a closer alignment between the intent of the contact and the purpose for which consent was given.

Businesses need to take extra care in capturing and documenting consent and not rely on generalized opt-ins or third-party lead sources.

This means:

• Re-auditing consent flows (especially web forms and transfers)

• Implementing lead source tracking tools

• Clearly documenting and storing proof of consent

Strategic takeaways: What should businesses do now?

This decision requires a recalibration of both compliance and outreach strategies. Businesses should:

Double-check dialing technology classification

Understand whether your current solution could be interpreted as an “autodialer” under varying district court interpretations. Use providers like Convoso who offer manual dialing options, customizable workflow controls, and compliance-first features.

Refine lead verification processes

Ensure you're truly calling businesses when targeting mobile numbers. Use data enrichment and intent signals to better distinguish personal versus commercial use numbers—especially if you're operating in multiple jurisdictions.

Capture and store consent with precision

Move beyond checkboxes and blanket permissions. Maintain granular records of who consented, how, when, and for what. Avoid relying on “presumed consent” from form fills or lead lists unless they’ve been validated.

Monitor legal trends at the district level

The court landscape will become more fractured, and plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions will pose greater risk. Staying up-to-date will be crucial—so will working with partners that monitor regulations and offer adaptable compliance frameworks.

Don’t ignore STIR/SHAKEN enforcement

While FCC interpretations are no longer binding in court, the broader ecosystem—including carrier blocking mechanisms and call authentication standards—remains very much in play.

STIR/SHAKEN helps consumers trust that caller ID information is accurate. By adopting industry best practices, Convoso is able to sign calls with the highest level of attestation under the STIR/SHAKEN framework, ensuring that customer calls are transmitted with the strongest security and verification available.

Final thoughts: Compliance is now a competitive advantage

This ruling throws open the door to more lawsuits (more complicated lawsuits), higher risk, and uneven enforcement. 

District courts can now decide for themselves what the TCPA means if it is not explicitly written in the law, and do not have to defer to the FCC. Although many courts will look to what the FCC says for guidance, other courts may try to forge their own path on some of the issues mentioned above. 

Compliance is no longer a checkbox—it’s a living, strategic function that can determine whether your outbound operations thrive or stall.

At Convoso, we’re committed to helping our customers navigate this landscape with the tools, data, and compliance intelligence needed to stay ahead.