The FCC Votes to Reshape the Calling Ecosystem

In a move poised to fundamentally reshape the landscape of voice communications in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on October 28, 2025, unanimously voted to adopt a sweeping Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). Titled “Improving Verification and Presentation of Caller Identification Information,” this FNPRM represents a multifaceted regulatory initiative, targeting the twin pillars of consumer trust and business compliance.  It also proposes changes that will help to curb some of the abusive litigation under the TCPA that has cropped up in recent years.  The action confirms the agenda item that had been anticipated for the Commission’s October open meeting and signals a powerful, bipartisan consensus on the need for reform.

This comprehensive proposal is not merely an incremental adjustment to existing rules. Instead, it advances a dual-pronged strategy aimed at both aggressively combating the scourge of illegal robocalls and modernizing outdated aspects of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) that have long burdened legitimate businesses. As articulated by FCC Chair Brendan Carr during the meeting, the Commission is now “looking at every point in the lifecycle of an illegal robocall and working to make it harder for the bad actors to run their schemes”. This holistic approach is designed to achieve two primary anti-robocall priorities: first, to stop illegal calls before they ever reach a consumer’s phone, and second, to empower consumers with accurate, verified information so they can confidently decide which calls to answer.

The unanimous approval of this FNPRM suggests continued clarity in the FCC’s regulatory philosophy. In the past few years, the Commission’s efforts have moved away from a private litigation-centric model of deterrence that dominated since the TCPA was adopted towards a much more focused, technical approach—implementing the STIR/SHAKEN framework to make it easier to detect spoofing combined with new technological mandates that make legitimate calls more trustworthy. This represents a continued focus on an offensive strategy, one that aims to create a positive business case for “good” calling behavior, thereby more effectively isolating and marginalizing illegal operators. The rules now proposed for public comment could usher in a new era of trust, transparency, and regulatory clarity for the entire telecommunications industry.

Part 1: Beyond STIR/SHAKEN — The Future of Verified and Branded Caller ID

The technological centerpiece of the FNPRM is a bold move to address a critical flaw in the current call authentication system. The Commission is proposing to move beyond simply verifying where a call is coming from to providing consumers with reliable information about who is calling, a change that could finally begin to restore consumer trust in the telephone network.

The Trust Gap in the Current Framework

The implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN framework has been a crucial step in combating illegal call spoofing. The technology is effective at providing a degree of certainty that the telephone number displayed on a caller ID has not been faked. However, its utility for the average consumer ends there. STIR/SHAKEN does not, and was never designed to, verify the identity of the person or entity making the call.

This has created a persistent “trust gap.” A consumer might receive a call with a checkmark or other indicator of STIR/SHAKEN verification, but they still have no idea if the call is from their bank, their pharmacy, or a scammer. This uncertainty has conditioned consumers to distrust all unsolicited calls, regardless of verification status. The result is plummeting answer rates for legitimate and often critical business communications, from fraud alerts to appointment reminders, which in turn harms both consumers and businesses. The FNPRM directly confronts this gap, recognizing that number authentication without name authentication is an incomplete solution.

The Proposed Solution: Rich Call Data (RCD) and Branded Calling

To close the trust gap, the FCC proposes a new framework that would require the transmission of verified caller identity information alongside the authenticated number. Under the proposal, the minimum requirement would be the display of a verified caller name.

More significantly, the framework is designed to leverage an industry standard known as Rich Call Data (RCD). RCD allows for the secure transmission of a much wider array of information, enabling a legitimate business to display not only its verified name but also its corporate logo and even the specific reason for the call (e.g., “Account Fraud Alert,” “Package Delivery Update”) directly on the recipient’s smartphone screen. This concept, often referred to as “branded calling,” transforms the caller ID from a simple number display into a rich, informative, and trustworthy communication channel. Several companies already offer such services, and the FCC views this model, exemplified by mechanisms like Branded Calling ID™ (BCID), as a viable and promising path toward rebuilding consumer confidence and dramatically improving answer rates for wanted calls.

Technical Mandates for Voice Service Providers

The FNPRM outlines specific new obligations for voice service providers across the call chain to make this vision a reality. The proposed rules would create a system of checks and balances to ensure the integrity of the information presented to consumers:

• Originating Providers: A voice service provider that originates a call would be required to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of the caller. For calls that it authenticates with a full A-level attestation under STIR/SHAKEN (the highest level of confidence), the provider would be mandated to insert this verified caller identity information into the secure digital signature, known as the SHAKEN PASSporT.
• Terminating Providers: The voice service provider serving the called party would be required to transmit this verified caller identity information to the consumer’s handset whenever it receives a call that has an A-level attestation.

The Commission is seeking public comment on several critical details, including how to precisely define “reasonable” verification and whether the standards for verification should differ based on the type of caller, such as a large enterprise versus an individual subscriber. The implementation of this framework represents a significant technical undertaking, but it also signals a fundamental shift in how caller ID is perceived—from a passive, often unreliable data point to an active, verified, and valuable component of the communication itself. This shift introduces a new dynamic for the industry, transforming a compliance mandate into a potential commercial opportunity. Carriers will face the cost of upgrading their networks but will also be positioned to offer “trusted call delivery” as a premium service to businesses eager to increase their customer engagement. This is likely to spur the growth of a new sub-industry of technology vendors and verification authorities dedicated to managing and securing brand identities within the voice network.

Part 2: Fortifying the Borders — A Targeted Strategy Against Foreign-Originated Robocalls

A substantial portion of the FNPRM is dedicated to a multi-layered defense strategy aimed squarely at what the FCC identifies as a “major source of illegal calls”: those that originate from outside the United States. For years, scammers have exploited the jurisdictional and technical complexities of international calling to flood the U.S. network with fraudulent robocalls while remaining largely beyond the reach of domestic law enforcement. The FCC’s proposal seeks to erect a series of new barriers to disrupt this illicit traffic.

The strategy effectively creates a digital “country of origin label” for voice traffic, providing a simple but powerful data point that can be used by carriers, analytics engines, and consumers to better assess the risk of an incoming call. The key proposals include:

1. Mandatory Marking at the Gateway: The proposal would require “gateway providers”—the first U.S.-based provider in the call path to receive a call from a foreign network—to mark the call with a “foreign origination indicator”. This ensures that any call entering the U.S. network is immediately identified at its point of entry.
2. Unaltered Transmission: To maintain the integrity of this signal, all subsequent non-gateway intermediate providers within the call path would be required to pass this foreign origination indicator along to the next provider without alteration. This prevents the indicator from being stripped or lost as the call traverses the domestic network.
3. Display to the Consumer: Terminating voice service providers would be required to transmit an indicator to the called party’s device, making it clear to the consumer that the call originated from outside the United States.
4. Integration with Blocking Analytics: The proposal would mandate that any voice service provider using “reasonable analytics” to block unwanted calls must incorporate the foreign origination indicator as a key factor in their blocking algorithms. This would likely lead to much more aggressive filtering of unmarked or suspicious international traffic.
5. Prohibiting Foreign Spoofing of U.S. Numbers: Going a step further, the FCC is seeking public comment on an outright prohibition of the practice of spoofing a U.S. telephone number for any call that originates outside the United States. This would target a common tactic used by foreign scammers to deceive American consumers into answering their calls.

While this robust strategy is designed to combat fraud, its broad application could create significant operational challenges for legitimate global enterprises. A U.S.-based company that operates a customer service call center in Canada, a financial institution with a fraud detection unit in the United Kingdom, or even a U.S. citizen roaming internationally and calling home could have their legitimate calls marked as “foreign”. This labeling could subject them to higher rates of blocking by carrier analytics or cause them to be ignored by consumers, disrupting essential and desired communications. This potential for unintended consequences will almost certainly lead to intense engagement during the public comment period, with multinational corporations and other stakeholders likely advocating for the creation of a “trusted foreign originator” program or other nuanced exceptions to ensure that the FCC’s efforts to block bad actors do not inadvertently penalize legitimate international commerce and communication.

Part 3: The “Delete, Delete, Delete” Initiative — A Paradigm Shift in TCPA Compliance

Perhaps the most legally consequential section of the FNPRM involves a proposed overhaul of key provisions of the FCC’s regulations implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). As part of its broader “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative aimed at eliminating outdated and burdensome regulations, the Commission is proposing changes that could reduce the compliance obligations and litigation risks for any business that communicates with its customers via phone or text message.

These proposals appear to be a direct and deliberate effort to address the economics of a specific type of TCPA litigation. For years, a segment of the plaintiffs’ bar has focused on “gotcha” lawsuits, which are often based not on evidence of actual consumer harm but on a company’s failure to adhere perfectly to ambiguous or technically complex procedural requirements. By targeting the specific rules that are most frequently exploited in these class-action lawsuits, the FCC is attempting to remove the statutory basis for such claims. This could force a strategic reorientation within the TCPA litigation industry, shifting the focus away from procedural technicalities and toward more substantive violations, such as calling numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry or making calls without any form of prior consumer consent.

Reforming the “Revoke All” Rule

The FCC proposes to either eliminate or substantially modify the “revoke all” rule, a recent regulation that has been a source of significant concern for businesses. This rule, portions of which have been stayed by the Commission, could be interpreted to require a company to cease all consented communications to a consumer if that consumer opts out of just one specific type of communication.

The Commission has now identified this as a rule that “might harm consumers”. A consumer who texts “STOP” to a marketing message from their bank might not intend to also block critical, time-sensitive fraud alerts from that same institution. Similarly, opting out of promotional calls from a pharmacy should not prevent that consumer from receiving automated prescription refill reminders. During the October 28 meeting, FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty specifically highlighted these potential unintended consequences, emphasizing the need for a more granular and consumer-friendly approach that gives consumers control without forcing them into an all-or-nothing choice.

Redefining “Reasonable Means” of Revocation

A frequent and costly source of TCPA litigation has been the ambiguity surrounding the “reasonable means” standard for revoking consent. The current rule requires a business to honor a consumer’s request to opt-out if it is made through “any reasonable method,” a vague standard that has led to class-action lawsuits based on claims that a company failed to process a revocation sent through a non-standard channel.

In response to industry requests, the FCC is now seeking comment on a proposal to allow businesses to designate specific and exclusive methods for revoking consent. For example, a company could clearly disclose to consumers that opt-out requests must be made by replying “STOP” to a text message, clicking a link in an email, or calling a specific toll-free number. This would provide a clear, bright-line standard for compliance. However, the Commission has expressed a critical concern that any designated methods must not be “complex, difficult, or cumbersome,” ensuring that the process for revoking consent remains simple and accessible for consumers.

The Potential End of Company-Specific DNC Lists

In one of its most significant proposed changes, the FNPRM contemplates deleting the long-standing requirement that businesses maintain their own internal, company-specific Do-Not-Call (DNC) list. This rule has been in place for two decades, existing alongside the National DNC Registry.

The FCC’s rationale is that the combination of the National DNC Registry and the overarching requirement for companies to obtain consent and honor opt-out requests may now provide a sufficient layer of consumer protection, making the company-specific list a redundant administrative burden.  Eliminating this requirement would have a significant ripple effect, as it would also remove associated mandates that have become common targets for litigation, such as the rule requiring a company to have a “written policy, available on demand, for maintaining a do-not-call list”. This change would streamline compliance for businesses and could further reduce the scope of lawsuits based on procedural non-compliance.

Part 4: Strategic Implications and Actionable Recommendations

The FCC’s FNPRM is not a distant, abstract policy document; it is a blueprint for a new operational reality for any organization that uses voice or text communication. Its proposals carry profound strategic implications for telecommunication carriers, marketing departments, and legal and compliance teams. Understanding these impacts and preparing for the changes ahead is now a critical priority.

Summary of Key Proposals

The following table provides a high-level overview of the core elements of the FNPRM, summarizing the current regulatory landscape, the proposed changes, and the potential impact on businesses. This distillation of the multifaceted proposal allows for a quick and clear understanding of the “before and after” scenarios for each key rule.

Conclusion: The Road Ahead — Shaping the Future of Voice Communication

The FCC’s unanimous adoption of the “Improving Verification and Presentation of Caller Identification Information” FNPRM marks the beginning of a crucial new chapter in telecommunications regulation. It is a bold, complex, and necessary initiative that seeks to fundamentally re-engineer the voice ecosystem to favor trust, transparency, and legitimacy. The proposal’s dual focus on empowering consumers with better information while providing significant regulatory relief to compliant businesses represents a sophisticated and holistic approach to a problem that has plagued the nation for over a decade.

The document approved by the Commission will now be prepared for publication in the Federal Register, an action that will trigger the official public comment period. The coming months will be a critical period for all stakeholders.  The most important immediate action is for all affected parties—carriers, businesses, trade associations, and consumer groups—to prepare and file substantive comments with the FCC. The public comment period, which will be formally announced upon the FNPRM’s publication in the Federal Register, is the primary opportunity to shape the final rules, raise concerns about unintended consequences, and propose workable solutions.

The path from a proposed rule to a final, binding order is a long one, and the public comment period will undoubtedly be a contentious phase. Consumer advocacy groups, the plaintiffs’ bar, multinational corporations, and a wide array of industry associations will all weigh in with their perspectives, data, and arguments. The final rules that emerge from this process will be shaped by that feedback and will likely set the trajectory for voice communication, customer engagement, and telemarketing litigation for years to come. The challenge and the opportunity for all stakeholders is to engage constructively in this process, helping the FCC strike the right balance to create a regulatory framework that effectively protects consumers, empowers legitimate businesses, and permanently disrupts the business model of bad actors.

Join the EIA today to help strengthen and shape policies that affect all ecommerce businesses. Together, we can continue to create the future of ecommerce. Subscribe to EIA email updates to stay informed on key developments and their impact on your business.