FAQs – Tele-Town	Halls
Summary:		 There	is	understandable interest	in	how	the	Telephone	Consumer	
Protection	Act’s (TCPA) robocall	restrictions	apply	to	calls	made	by,	or	on	behalf	of,
the	federal	government,	including	mass-participant	calls	made	by	federal	legislators	
to	discuss	issues	and	gather	input	from	their	constituents (commonly	referred	to	as
“tele-town	halls”).		The	Commission	is	considering	a	proposed	ruling	on	a	petition	
asking	for	a	formal	clarification of	how	tele-town	halls	comply	with	the	TCPA,	and	
the	Supreme	Court recently	decided	a	relevant	case,	Campbell-Ewald	Co.	v.	Gomez,
involving	robocalls	made	by	a	federal	government	contractor.		The	Commission	is	
now	reviewing	how	that	judicial	decision	impacts	the pending	request	on	tele-town	
halls. Below	is a	short	Q&A	that	we	hope will provide	some	interim	information	on	
the	issue.		Once	the	Commission	completes	its	review	and	votes on	the	request	
described	above,	this	material	will	be	updated.	
Q:		Are	robocalls	for	the purpose	of	obtaining constituent	participation	in	tele-town	
halls	illegal	under	the	TCPA?		
A:		The	TCPA does	not	specifically	address	whether	the	federal	government	must	get	
consent	for	its	own	robocalls, whether	made	by	federal	employees	or	contractors	on	
the	government’s	behalf.		Instead,	the	TCPA	generally	defines	robocalls	as	calls	
made	either	with	an	automatic	telephone	dialing	system	(sometimes	called	an	
“autodialer”)	or	with	a	prerecorded	or	artificial	voice	and	describes	two	broad	
categories:	telemarketing	and	informational.		Federal	government	robocalls	to	
constituents,	including	those	to	organize	tele-town	halls, are	informational,	not	
telemarketing,	and	may	be	freely	made	to	a	constituent’s	residential	landline phone.		
The	question	of	federal	robocalls	to	a	constituent’s	wireless phones,	however,	is	
more	complicated,	as	calls	to	wireless	generally	require	the	consumer’s	prior	
consent.	 The	Commission	is	currently	considering	a	proposed	ruling	on	the	tele-
town	hall	question,	in	light	of	the	recent	Supreme	Court	ruling.	
Q:		What	is	the	Commission	doing	to	clarify	whether	consent	is	required	for	robocalls	
to	organize	tele-town	halls, along	with	other	federal	government	calls?
A:		In	light	of	the	Supreme	Court’s	recent	ruling	on	what	the	federal	government	
may	and	may	not	do	under	the	TCPA,	the	Chairman	recently	circulated	a	proposal	to	
his	fellow	Commissioners	that	would,	if	adopted	by	the	full	Commission, clarify	the	
situation.		Specifically,	the	Chairman’s	proposal	would address whether	the	federal	
government,	its	agencies, contractors	working	on	their	behalf, and	its	officials acting	
in	an	official	capacity	are	subject	to	the	TCPA’s	restrictions,	including	when	they	or	
their	contractors	make	robocalls	in	the	context	of	organizing	and	participating	in	
tele-town	halls relating	to	official	duties.	
Q:		Is	the	Commission	considering	whether	robocalls	as	part	of	an	election campaign
or	other	political	activity	can	be	made	without	consumer	consent?
A:		No.		This	issue	is	settled	and	not	part	of	the	Chairman’s	proposal.	Robocalls	made	
as	part	of	an	election campaign	or	other political	activity outside	a	legislator’s	
official	duties	require	consumer	consent	when	made	to	wireless	phones.	 For	more	
information,	please	review	the	Commission’s	biennial	reminder	regarding	political	
robocalls	and	robotexts	(http://go.usa.gov/cskTV).
Q:		Why	is	there	a	distinction	between	residential	landline	phones	and	wireless	phones?
A:	The	TCPA statutory	language makes	this	distinction across	the	board,	in	
recognition	of	the	cost	of	calls	to	wireless	phones	when	the	TCPA	was	enacted,	and	
the	arguably	greater	privacy	intrusion.		
Q:		How	can	a	robocaller	obtain	consumer	consent	for	those	calls	that	require	it?
A:		For	informational	robocalls	to	wireless	numbers,	consent	is	relatively
straightforward to	obtain.		It	can	be	either	written	or	oral,	can	be	obtained	online,	on	
a	(non-robocall)	call,	or	any	other	reasonable	means.