The FCC asks whether opt-outs should take seven business days, not ten

On the same day it published its final rule on revoking consent, the Federal Communications Commission published a second document asking what to change next. It is a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 02-278 (FCC 26-67), adopted September 30, 2026. Comments are due 25 November 2026, and reply comments by 28 December 2026.

Nothing in it is a rule yet. The FCC asks questions and floats options. But the options have unusual backing. On June 30, 2026 the American Bankers Association, the National Consumer Law Center and ACA International filed a joint letter proposing them. Those three rarely ask for the same thing, which makes some of these ideas more likely to stick than the usual wish list.

The comment deadline is also the date the final rule takes effect. We covered that rule in our post on the FCC's opt-out rewrite.

A shorter deadline to honor an opt-out

Today a caller must honor a revocation "within a reasonable time from the date that the request is made, not to exceed ten business days after receipt of the request." The FCC's reasoning for revisiting it is short: callers can now name an exclusive, automated way to revoke, so maybe they can process revocations faster.

The Joint Letter suggests "reducing the deadline to seven business days unless the caller demonstrates that processing a revocation beyond seven business days is reasonable." The FCC also asks whether the deadline should differ between callers that name an exclusive method and those that don't, and whether two deadlines would confuse people.

The end of one-way texting

The current rule lets a sender use a texting setup that can't take replies, as long as each text says two-way texting isn't available "due to technical limitations of the texting protocol" and gives another way to revoke, "such as a telephone number or website." The joint letter asks the FCC to remove that option.

The FCC seeks comment on requiring every sender covered by section 64.1200(a)(10) to accept a reply text as a revocation. It also floats a middle path: "allowing one-way texting for informational messages and require two-way texting only on text messages that include an advertisement or telemarketing." If your fraud or balance alerts go out on a short code that can't take replies, check this one first.

A one-step "revoke all"

Under the final rule, a caller may treat an opt-out from an informational message as applying only to that category of message. The FCC now asks whether that should be allowed only if the caller also provides a "method to revoke consent for all types of messages for which consent is required," and whether that method would have to be automated.

There's also a narrower question that matters to anyone with joint accounts. The Edison Electric Institute asked the FCC to clarify that a revocation applies "only to the telephone number for which consent has been revoked rather than extend to all telephone numbers associated with a customer's account." The FCC asks whether that fits the TCPA's reference to the "called party."

Affiliates and lines of business

The do-not-call rules already say a request applies to the entity making the call and "will not apply to affiliated entities unless the consumer reasonably would expect them to be included." The FCC asks whether to change that standard, give more specific guidance, or extend it to all robocalls. A holding company whose bank, mortgage arm and insurance agency all text customers would feel the answer.

The notice lists other ideas from the joint letter as well: a shorter list of standardized opt-out words, dropping the rebuttable presumption in section 64.1200(a)(11), and allowing a confirmation call or text after a revocation. The FCC's own list of affected industries includes commercial banks, credit unions, consumer lenders and collection agencies, alongside schools and hospitals.

What it could mean

We think the two-way texting question is the one to answer, either in a comment or at least internally. If the FCC removes the one-way option for informational texts too, every alert program on a no-reply short code would need to change, and most of that work would land on your texting vendor. Ask the vendor now whether your codes can take replies and what turning that on would cost.

The seven-day idea looks small until you picture opt-outs that still pass through a spreadsheet or a weekly file sent to a vendor. Our guess is that anyone who built a process with a week of slack should plan as if that slack will shrink.

The affiliates question cuts the other way. Clearer rules could help a group that today honors every opt-out across all its companies out of caution. If you have a view on how customers expect an opt-out to travel, this is the rare comment period where banks and consumer groups are already on the same page, and a short comment from a smaller institution may carry weight.