FCC Eyes Scrapping Internal Do Not Call Rule

In the intricate dance between marketers and consumers, few regulations are as foundational as the Do Not Call rules. For decades, the ability for a consumer to tell a specific company “do not call me again” has been a sacrosanct principle, a line in the sand backed by regulatory force. Now, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering a move that could redraw that line entirely, proposing a seismic shift in telemarketing compliance that has both businesses and consumer advocates holding their breath.

The agency has floated a proposal to potentially eliminate the long-standing requirement for businesses to maintain their own internal Do Not Call (DNC) lists. This seemingly subtle change would allow companies to rely solely on the National DNC Registry for compliance, a move the FCC suggests could streamline operations and cut red tape. But this proposal is far more than an administrative tweak; it represents a fundamental rethinking of consumer consent and corporate responsibility, setting the stage for a high-stakes debate over the future of direct marketing.

With a draft of the proposal scheduled for discussion at the FCC’s pivotal meeting on October 28, 2025, the industry is on the precipice of what could be the most significant change to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) landscape in years. The central question is both simple and profound: Is simplifying compliance for businesses worth sacrificing a layer of specific, direct consumer choice?

The Dual-Shield System: How DNC Rules Work Today

To grasp the magnitude of the proposed change, one must first understand the current regulatory framework. For years, telemarketers have operated under a two-pronged compliance obligation, a dual-shield system designed to offer comprehensive consumer protection against unwanted calls.

The first shield is the well-known National DNC Registry. This is the consumer’s broadsword, a tool that allows individuals to signal their general desire not to receive telemarketing calls from any company with which they do not have an established business relationship. Placing a number on this registry is a blanket opt-out from the world of cold calls.

The second, and arguably more nuanced, shield is the internal, company-specific DNC list. This is the consumer’s scalpel. It empowers an individual to terminate communication with a particular business, even if they have a prior relationship or have not registered on the national list. If a customer tells a company to stop calling, that company is legally obligated to add the number to its internal DNC list and honor that request. This rule ensures that consent is not perpetual and can be revoked on a case-by-case basis.

Current FCC rules are explicit about the responsibilities tied to these internal lists. Companies must have a written policy for maintaining them, available on demand. They must train their staff on the policy’s existence and proper use. Crucially, they are required to record a consumer’s opt-out request promptly, typically within 10 business days, ensuring that the consumer’s wish is respected swiftly. This framework places a direct and ongoing responsibility on every business that engages in telemarketing.

The FCC's Rationale: Redundancy or Deregulation?

The FCC’s draft Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) posits that this dual-shield system may now be redundant. The commission’s argument hinges on the idea that the combination of the National DNC Registry and the broader anti-robocall provisions of the TCPA already provide a sufficient bulwark for consumer protection. In this view, the internal DNC list is a relic of a previous era, an overlapping regulation that no longer pulls its weight.

From the perspective of businesses, the FCC’s logic is compelling. Maintaining an internal DNC list is not a trivial task. It involves significant administrative burdens, including meticulous record-keeping, continuous data management to scrub against calling lists, and recurring staff training obligations. These operational costs are compounded by a substantial legal risk. A significant portion of TCPA litigation stems from alleged violations of internal DNC requests, where plaintiffs claim a company continued to call after being told to stop.

By eliminating this requirement, the FCC could theoretically slash compliance costs and remove a major source of class-action lawsuits. For many businesses, this would be a welcome relief, simplifying a notoriously complex regulatory environment and allowing them to focus their compliance efforts solely on the National DNC Registry. The proposal is framed as a common-sense measure to reduce duplicative burdens, but it inevitably raises questions about whether this is merely streamlining or a more significant step toward deregulation.

A Double-Edged Sword for Consumers and Marketers

While the potential benefits for businesses are clear, the proposal’s impact on consumers and the broader marketing ecosystem is far more complex. Eliminating the internal DNC requirement would not be a simple win for the industry; it would create a new set of challenges and trade-offs for everyone involved.

For consumers, the primary loss is one of granular control. The current system allows an individual to curate their marketing exposure. A person might be happy to receive promotional calls from their bank or a favorite retailer but want to stop calls from a specific insurance company. The internal DNC list makes this possible. Under the proposed change, the choice becomes binary: either register on the National DNC list and block nearly all telemarketers, or remain open to calls from everyone. The ability to selectively opt-out from individual companies would vanish.

This could also create unintended consequences for businesses. Many companies have built sophisticated systems around managing consent and internal suppression lists. A sudden shift to relying solely on the National Registry could create significant operational hurdles. Furthermore, the internal DNC list can be a valuable tool for customer relationship management, allowing a company to respect the wishes of a potentially valuable customer who simply does not want phone calls, without severing the relationship entirely.

The change could shift the balance of power in unforeseen ways. While it might reduce one category of litigation, it could amplify the importance of others, placing immense pressure on flawless compliance with the National DNC Registry. Any error in scrubbing lists against the national database could expose a company to massive liability, potentially creating a new focal point for legal challenges. The proposal promises simplicity but may, in practice, introduce a new and untested set of ambiguities.

The Path Forward: A Call for Comments

The future of this proposal is far from certain. The October 28, 2025 meeting is the first major milestone, where the commission will vote on whether to formally adopt the FNPRM and open it to public feedback. If it passes, a 60-day public comment period will commence following its publication in the Federal Register. This window will be a critical forum for all stakeholders to make their voices heard.

The FCC is specifically seeking input on several key questions that cut to the heart of the debate. Is the National DNC Registry, on its own, a sufficient protection for consumers, or is the company-specific opt-out a vital tool that must be preserved? What is the true compliance burden imposed by internal DNC lists when weighed against the consumer benefit they provide? And critically, how can the FCC ensure its rules remain aligned with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) similar telemarketing regulations to prevent creating a confusing and contradictory compliance landscape for businesses operating nationwide?

Industry groups, consumer advocacy organizations, and individual businesses will undoubtedly submit extensive comments, shaping the arguments that will ultimately influence the FCC’s final decision. The outcome will depend on whether the commission is persuaded that the era of the internal DNC list has passed, or if it concludes that this long-standing consumer protection remains an indispensable part of modern telemarketing regulation.

This rulemaking process is more than a regulatory update; it is a referendum on the balance between corporate efficiency and individual privacy. The decision reached in the coming months will not only redefine compliance for an entire industry but will also shape the nature of the conversations that businesses can have with their customers for years to come.