By: Jeffrey Backman, Esq., Roy Taub, Esq., and Jacob Mars, Esq.
On September 24, 2026, Representative Suhas Subramanyam introduced H.R. 10610, the Stop Spam Calls Act, which would direct the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to revise its regulations governing “prior express written consent” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and has not yet become law.
H.R. 10610 would require the FCC, within one year of enactment, to revise 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9) to match the definition of “prior express written consent” contained in the FCC’s January 26, 2024, final rule, published at 89 Fed. Reg. 5098. The revised definition would take effect 18 months after enactment.
The 2024 rule included requirements that consent identify no more than one seller and cover calls and text messages logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted consent. The Eleventh Circuit subsequently vacated the challenged one-to-one consent and lead-generation restrictions in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025). H.R. 10610 would direct the FCC to restore the specified regulatory language through a new statutory mandate.
The bill addresses issues arising from the Supreme Court’s decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), which eliminated Chevron deference, and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025), which held that courts must independently determine whether an agency’s statutory interpretation is correct in private enforcement proceedings. If enacted, H.R. 10610 would establish a congressional directive for the FCC to adopt specified regulatory language. This would provide a statutory basis for the required rulemaking, rather than relying solely on the FCC’s interpretation of existing law. However, the bill would not expressly override either Supreme Court decision or eliminate judicial review of the resulting regulation. Courts could still consider whether the FCC’s rule complies with the statute as amended.
Accordingly, the bill would address the regulatory framework affected by these decisions, but its enactment would not necessarily foreclose all challenges to the resulting TCPA consent requirements. H.R. 10610, after all, does not amend the TCPA, but simply directs the FCC to reissue a ruling it was already declared to lack authority to issue.
The bill must proceed through committee consideration and, if advanced, through floor consideration by the full House of Representatives, and ultimately to passage and enactment through the standard legislative process in both chambers of Congress. Until those steps are completed, H.R. 10610 remains a proposal rather than an enforceable law.
This publication is provided by Greenspoon Marder LLP is issued for informational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as general legal advice nor a solicitation of any type. Please contact the author(s) or your Greenspoon Marder LLP contact if you have any questions regarding the currency of this information. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision. Before you decide, ask for written information about the lawyer’s legal qualifications and experience.
