In 2025, the Supreme Court decided McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson, holding that lower courts are not bound by the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA. It sounds like an arcane procedural ruling, and its effects are anything but: it makes the texting-law landscape less predictable, because different courts can now read the same TCPA provisions differently.
What did McLaughlin v. McKesson decide?
The Court held that the Hobbs Act does not require lower courts to defer to the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA. Previously, the FCC's readings of the statute carried heavy weight in litigation. After McLaughlin, courts can interpret the TCPA independently, which means the agency's guidance is persuasive rather than binding when a case reaches a courtroom.
Why does it matter for campaigns?
Because it adds uncertainty on top of an already-shifting area. In a world where courts defer to the FCC, a campaign could look to the agency's positions for a reasonably reliable read of what's allowed. After McLaughlin, and in the broader post-Chevron environment where courts give agencies less deference generally, different circuits may diverge on questions like what counts as an autodialer or how consent must be handled. That divergence is a compliance headache for any campaign texting across multiple states and jurisdictions.
How should campaigns respond?
Stay conservative and keep records. When the law is unsettled and courts may disagree, the safe posture is to run a program that would satisfy the strictest plausible reading, real consent, instant opt-outs, clear identification, and durable records, rather than betting on a favorable interpretation. The campaigns exposed by rulings like this are the ones running close to the line; the ones that build compliance in are insulated from the uncertainty. See the complete TCPA guide for those fundamentals.
Frequently asked questions
What did McLaughlin v. McKesson rule?
That lower courts are not bound by the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA under the Hobbs Act. Courts can now interpret the statute independently, making FCC guidance persuasive rather than binding.
Why does the ruling matter for texting?
Because it adds unpredictability. Different courts may reach different conclusions on TCPA questions like the autodialer definition, which complicates compliance for campaigns texting across jurisdictions.
How should campaigns handle the uncertainty?
Run conservatively, build to the strictest plausible reading of the rules, and keep durable records. That insulates a program from whichever way a given court interprets the law.
Keep reading: the complete TCPA guide and what is an autodialer?. For the agency, see the FCC.
This is general information, not legal advice. This reflects developments as of the date above; consult counsel for current rules.