If you told a company to stop its robocalls or robotexts, federal rules say that request counts when you make it in any reasonable way that clearly shows you want the messages to end. Replying STOP to a text is one example. The caller then has a reasonable time, no more than ten business days, to stop.
Most people facing this have already done the obvious thing. They replied STOP, said "please stop calling" to a live agent, or sent an email, and the automated calls or texts kept coming anyway. Now they are wondering whether that request ever counted, how long the company gets to act on it, and whether anything in federal law speaks to calls that continue after they asked for them to end.
This page walks through the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) rules on consent and its revocation. It covers what the regulation requires of the caller, which rule applies to which kind of call, and what the statute makes potentially available when calls continue.
What Revoking Consent Means Under the TCPA
Federal law generally bars certain automated and prerecorded calls unless the person called agreed to them first. Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), it is unlawful to make a call to a cell phone number, among other lines, "using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice" unless the call is "made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party." A separate rule, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B), applies to prerecorded-voice calls to residential lines and lists its own exceptions.
Prior express consent is the permission that makes such a call lawful. Revocation is the consumer taking that permission back. In plain terms, it is an instruction to a caller to stop making automated or prerecorded calls or texts. Consent is not permanent, and the FCC regulation that governs how a consumer withdraws it is 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10).
An automatic telephone dialing system is defined in 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) as "equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers." A call using an artificial or prerecorded voice is covered by § 227(b)(1) whether or not that equipment is used.
How a Consumer May Revoke Consent
The regulation sets a broad standard. Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10), a called party "may revoke prior express consent, including prior express written consent," by "using any reasonable method to clearly express a desire not to receive further calls or text messages from the caller or sender."
The regulation names several methods that count as reasonable on their own terms:
- an automated, interactive voice or key-press opt-out on a call;
- the words "stop," "quit," "end," "revoke," "opt out," "cancel," or "unsubscribe" sent in reply to a text;
- a website or telephone number the caller designates for opt-out requests.
Other wording counts too. If a reply text uses different words, the caller must treat it as a revocation "if a reasonable person would understand those words to have conveyed a request to revoke consent." Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(11), other means, "such as a voicemail or email," create a rebuttable presumption that consent was revoked once the consumer produces evidence that the request was made. If a texting system cannot accept replies, each text must say so and must offer reasonable alternative ways to revoke.
The current text also says callers "may not designate an exclusive means to request revocation of consent." A consumer is not limited to the channel a company prefers. More background on consent rules appears in this site's consumer law FAQ.
What Callers Must Do After Consent Is Revoked
The duty to act falls on the caller. Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10), once a consumer uses a reasonable method, "that consent is considered definitively revoked and the caller may not send additional robocalls and robotexts." Every revocation request "made in any reasonable manner must be honored within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days from receipt of such request."
Ten business days is the outer limit, not an automatic grace period. The standard is a reasonable time, capped at ten business days.
The regulation allows one follow-up message. Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(12), a single text confirming the revocation is permitted if it only confirms the request, contains no marketing, and is the only message sent afterward. A confirmation sent within five minutes is presumed to fall within the consumer's earlier consent. If it is sent later, the sender has to show that the delay was reasonable.
Automated or prerecorded calls or texts that arrive after a valid revocation, and after that window has closed, may violate the TCPA. That depends on conditions: what kind of call it was, whether consent was required for it, and whether the revocation was conveyed in a reasonable way. Whether a particular situation violates the law depends on its facts.
The TCPA's Two Private Rights of Action
For someone still getting texts weeks after replying STOP, the practical question is what the statute provides. The TCPA contains two separate private actions, each with its own conditions.
47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) covers violations of the automated-call and artificial-or-prerecorded-voice rules and the regulations under them. A person or entity may, "if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State," bring an action in an appropriate court of that State. The action may seek to enjoin the violation, "to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater," or both. If the court finds the defendant "willfully or knowingly" violated the rules, it "may, in its discretion," increase the award to "not more than 3 times" that amount.
47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) covers the do-not-call regulations. It applies to "a person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity" in violation of those regulations, subject to the same state-court condition. It allows an injunction, actual monetary loss "or to receive up to $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater," or both. The same discretionary increase to not more than three times that amount applies for willful or knowing violations. The statute adds an affirmative defense for a defendant that "has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures" to prevent such calls.
These are amounts the statute allows a court to award. Not every call breaks the law, and whether any action succeeds depends on the facts.
Robocalls, Robotexts, and the Do-Not-Call Rules: Which Rule Applies
These are two different frameworks. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) is the consent-based rule for calls and texts made with an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) is the separate authority behind the do-not-call regulations and the National Do Not Call Registry. The FTC's Registry FAQs describe the Registry as a list that tells registered telemarketers what numbers not to call, one that "doesn't block calls."
The two can overlap. A consumer may be on the Registry and also have given, then revoked, consent to a particular company. Depending on the facts, one call may raise questions under both frameworks. The FCC's robocall guide notes that its robotext rules apply "even if you have not placed your mobile phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry," and that telemarketers "must comply immediately with any do-not-call request you make during a call."
On equipment, the Supreme Court addressed what qualifies as an automatic telephone dialing system under § 227(a)(1) in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511 (decided April 1, 2021). Prerecorded or artificial-voice calls remain covered by § 227(b)(1)(A) regardless of the equipment used.
One clause in the printed statute is no longer current law. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) still contains an exception for calls made solely to collect a debt owed to or backed by the United States. The Supreme Court held that exception invalid and severed it in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, No. 19-631 (July 6, 2020).
Filing a Complaint with the FCC
People who have revoked consent and still get calls often want to report them. The Federal Communications Commission accepts those reports. According to the FCC's consumer guide, a consumer may report illegal calls or texts by choosing the "unwanted calls" category. The consumer may also note whether their number is being spoofed, blocked or mislabeled.
The FCC is direct about what follows. It "doesn't resolve individual complaints but uses them to guide policy and possible enforcement" under the TCPA or the Truth in Caller ID Act, and a complaint "may also be shared with other enforcement agencies." The same guide says a consumer may report Do Not Call violations to the FTC. The FTC's FAQs say the FTC cannot respond to each report but analyzes reports to take action.
An agency complaint is separate from a private action under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) or § 227(c)(5). One does not start or replace the other. The consumer privacy overview on this site discusses how call rules fit with other privacy protections.
What the Law Does Not Cover on This Page
This page covers the federal TCPA rules on revoking consent to automated and prerecorded calls and texts. State law may add protections, and those protections differ from state to state; they are not covered here. Debt collection contact rules under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) and credit reporting rules under the FCRA are separate subjects. This page also does not address political campaign calls, emergency calls, or other categories the TCPA treats differently. A broader view of these statutes appears under consumer rights law.
If You'd Like a Consumer Rights Case Review
Calls after revocation often turn on small details. These include how and when the STOP or opt-out request went out, whether the calls were automated or prerecorded, and whether they kept coming past the ten-business-day limit. A conversation with an attorney can cover the company involved, the texts, screenshots and call logs, the date of each request, and any reply the company sent. This page explains the federal rules only; it does not cover state law or debt collection rules. More on the federal statutes appears in this site's overview of consumer financial protection law.
To discuss calls or texts that continued after you revoked consent with an attorney, you may request a consumer rights case review through Federal Consumer Rights.
