Rule — legal-specific

FCC TCPA — AI-generated calls and texts in intake

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act's ban on artificial-or-prerecorded voice calls without prior express consent applies to AI-generated voice. The FCC's February 2024 AI Ruling made this explicit. If any part of a firm's intake stack — qualifier calls, appointment reminders, status-update texts — uses AI-generated audio or text at scale, the TCPA class-action exposure is $500 to $1,500 per call, statutory.

What the statute + ruling actually say

"It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States — (A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice — (iii) to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service …" 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(A) — the operative TCPA text

"We make clear that calls made with AI-generated voices fall within the TCPA's restrictions on artificial-or-prerecorded voice calls. The technology used to generate the voice does not change the underlying statutory analysis." FCC Declaratory Ruling on AI-Generated Voice Calls — February 2024, representative summary

What this means in plain English

Three things any firm running AI-touched outreach now carries:

Consent per call, per number. Prior express written consent is required for AI-generated voice or text to a cell number. General consent-to-marketing at intake is not the same standard.
Statutory damages per violation. $500 per call for a negligent violation, $1,500 for a knowing or willful violation. A modest campaign to 5,000 numbers without proper consent is a $2.5M to $7.5M statutory floor before defense cost.
Class exposure is easy to certify. Same script + same call source + same consent-defect pattern = commonality baked in.

The 2026 Michigan mass-tort firm case established that TCPA class exposure attaches to plaintiff firms using AI-generated intake outreach on the same terms it attaches to any other TCPA defendant.

What triggers the exposure in the sample

If any of the sample firm's ~5,000 intake touches used AI-generated voice or text without per-call consent tied to the specific number, the TCPA exposure is separate from the FRCP 37(e) exposure and adds directly to it. The intake AI failure and the outreach AI failure are two different rules that both apply.

The Snapshot flags whether AI-generated outreach is part of the intake stack and, if so, whether the consent-per-call record is preservation-grade under FRCP 37(e) as well.

What the $499 Snapshot shows against this rule

Whether the intake stack includes AI-generated voice or text — the inventory
If yes: whether the consent record is per-call, per-number, and dated — the compliance stance
Retention-record fix for the consent trail — the "reasonable steps" preservation stance under FRCP 37(e) as well
Signed independent-verifier statement noting whether the TCPA exposure attaches — the third-party record

See the 5-decision reproducibility drill →

How does this help me?

The statutory damages math is unforgiving. Knowing whether the exposure attaches BEFORE a TCPA plaintiff's firm sends the demand letter is the whole point.

Read: TCPA -- what dated consent-audit evidence saves you at $500-$1,500 per call →

$499 Snapshot. 3 business days.

Inventory + consent-record stance on your firm's actual AI-touched outreach + intake surface.

Buy $499

Snapshot credit applies to Baseline ($2,500) or Enterprise Attestation ($35-55K) upgrade within 30 days.