June 20, 2021

Volume XI, Number 171


June 18, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Fourth Circuit Strikes Down Federal Debt Collection Exemption to the TCPA

According to the Fourth Circuit, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) no longer exempts debt collection calls relating to debts owed to the federal government. See American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., et al. v. FCC, 18-1588 (4th Cir.). The Fourth Circuit’s decision reversed and remanded the case back to the lower court. The exemption at issue was created in 2015 by a legislative amendment to the TCPA, and it exempts automated calls that relate to the collection of debts “owed to or guaranteed by the federal government” from the TCPA’s ban on automated calls to cells phones. The impact of this decision will have immediate ramifications on debt collection practices in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Going forward, if the decision is appealed to and heard by the United States Supreme Court, there may be nationwide implications. The decision may also inform the Federal Communications Commission as it prepares its highly-anticipated overhaul of the TCPA in response to recent federal court decisions such as ACA International v. FCC that are chipping away at parts of the FCC’s July 2015 Omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order on the TCPA.

The American Association of Political Consultants and three other groups that regularly engage in political activities challenged the exemption. The groups argued that the debt-collection exemption contravenes their free speech rights by permitting commercial debt collection calls while prohibiting the political polling calls they make – calls that are protected under the First Amendment. The Fourth Circuit agreed, finding the TCPA exemption to be fatally underinclusive, meaning the exemption covered too little speech and did not apply equally to different speakers. The Court provided two reasons: “First, by authorizing many of the intrusive calls that the automated call ban was enacted to prohibit, the debt-collection exemption subverts the privacy protections underlying the ban. Second, the impact of the exemption deviates from the purpose of the automated call ban and, as such, it is an outlier among the other statutory exemptions.”

The Court also found that the TCPA’s exemption was a content-based restriction on free speech that did not satisfy strict scrutiny review and therefore violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Under the exemption, third parties were able to make otherwise prohibited calls to millions of debtors, and therefore the carve-out was not narrowly tailored when assessed in context.

Plaintiffs had made a broader argument that the free speech infirmity of the debt-collection exemption is not severable from the TCPA automated call ban, which would have meant that the entire robocall prohibition was unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit denied this request and only severed the narrow exemption while leaving the remainder of the TCPA intact. This remedy is consistent with the explicit directives of the “Supreme Court and Congress [that] strongly support a severance of the debt-collection exemption from the automated call ban,” the three-judge panel found.

©1994-2021 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 119



About this Author

Joshua Briones Litigation Lawyer Mintz
Member / Managing Member, Los Angeles Office

Joshua, Managing Member of the firm’s LA office, is a highly experienced trial lawyer with a national practice. He has received awards and national recognition for his innovative approach and specializes in high-stakes, bet-the-company litigation. He represents clients in such industries as financial services, building products, retail, pharmaceuticals, automotive, professional sports, food and beverage, petroleum, chemical manufacturing, health care, high technology, and higher education. He frequently publishes and lectures before national and local bar and industry...

Russell H. Fox, Communications Attorney, Mintz Levin, Regulatory Approvals

With over 35 years in the wireless telecommunications industry, Russell is among the most experienced wireless communications attorneys in the country. Unique among his peers, Russell assists clients on federal legislative, regulatory, and transactional matters. He analyzes legislation on behalf of clients, participates in proceedings before the FCC and other federal agencies, negotiates spectrum agreements, and represents wireless providers in spectrum auctions. He is also frequently consulted on matters involving US spectrum use and policy.

Whether they are in the middle of a...

Matthew Novian Complex Commercial Litigation Attorney

Matt focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation, including consumer protection matters. He has experience in drafting briefs and letters to opposing parties and in conducting depositions. In addition, Matt maintains an active pro bono practice, in which he counsels clients in matters related to immigration and domestic violence. He was a Law Clerk at Mintz in 2017. 

While attending law school, Matt was a summer associate at a Los Angeles-based law firm, where he worked on matters involving closely held corporations, commercial real estate disputes, and trademark licensing...

Elana Safner Cybersecurity Attorney Mintz

Elana advises clients on public policy, regulatory issues, and disputes affecting the TechComm sector, as well as privacy and cybersecurity matters. She also has experience with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) procedures and rulemakings.

She has a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP) (US Specialization) certification from the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

Prior to joining Mintz, Elana worked as an associate in the DC office of an international law firm, where she advocated on behalf of her clients spanning a wide variety of...