McLaughlin v. McKesson: Supreme Court Says Judges Decide What the TCPA Means

What the Supreme Court decided on June 20, 2025

The case is McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-1226. The Court heard argument on January 21, 2025 and decided it on June 20, 2025. The vote was 6 to 3. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.

The holding is short. In the Court’s words: “District courts are not bound by the agency’s interpretation, but instead must determine the meaning of the law under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation.”

Before this ruling, many courts treated FCC orders about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as binding. A federal law called the Hobbs Act channels challenges to FCC orders to the courts of appeals. Several circuits read that to mean a trial judge in a private TCPA lawsuit had to follow whatever the FCC said. The Supreme Court rejected that reading: “The Hobbs Act does not preclude district courts in enforcement proceedings from independently assessing whether an agency’s interpretation of the relevant statute is correct.”

How a junk fax case got to the Supreme Court

The dispute started with fax ads. According to the opinion, McKesson sent unsolicited fax advertisements in 2009 and 2010 without the opt-out notice the TCPA requires. McLaughlin, a chiropractic office, sued in 2014 in federal court in Northern California as a class action.

Some people in the class got the faxes on a regular fax machine. Others received them through online fax services, which deliver faxes by email or a web portal. In 2019 the FCC issued a ruling known as Amerifactors that said “an online fax service is not a ‘telephone facsimile machine.'” The trial court treated that ruling as binding. It threw out the online fax claims and decertified the class. McLaughlin was left with 12 faxes and a $6,000 award. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court reversed and sent the case back. It did not decide whether the FCC was right about online faxes. The Court wrote that it would “leave that issue for remand.” So the online fax question is open again in court, and judges will answer it by reading the statute. If you want the basics of fax claims, see our guide to junk fax lawsuits under the TCPA.

Why the ruling cuts both ways for people getting calls

This decision does not change the TCPA itself. It changes who has the last word on what the words mean. That matters because a lot of consumer protection in this area comes from FCC orders, not from the statute’s text.

Some FCC readings helped consumers. Others limited them. After McLaughlin, a defendant can argue that a consumer-friendly FCC rule reads too much into the statute. A consumer can argue the same about an FCC ruling that narrowed the law. The judge decides.

The fight over text messages shows how fast this played out. On July 21, 2025, two federal trial courts reached opposite answers on whether a text message counts as a “call” under the Do Not Call part of the statute, 47 U.S.C. 227(c)(5), according to a summary published by the law firm Troutman Amin. One judge in Illinois said no. One in Oregon said yes. In July 2026 a federal appeals court sided with the Illinois judge and cited McLaughlin to explain why the FCC’s view did not control. We cover that ruling in our story on the Seventh Circuit decision on texts and the Do Not Call list.

Expect more of this. Defense lawyers now challenge FCC positions that used to be treated as settled. Some will win and some will lose. Our overview of the FCC’s TCPA regulations flags which rules come straight from the statute and which rest on agency interpretation.

What stays the same

The core statute is untouched. The TCPA still allows $500 per violation, and up to $1,500 per violation if a court finds the violation willful or knowing (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3) and (c)(5)). Prerecorded and artificial voice calls to cell phones still need prior express consent under the statute’s own text. The four-year federal filing deadline in 28 U.S.C. 1658(a) still applies, which our page on the TCPA statute of limitations explains.

Claims that rest on plain statutory language are the least affected. A prerecorded sales call to your cell phone with no consent is the clearest example. Claims that depend on an FCC gloss, such as how the Do Not Call rules apply to texts, now carry more uncertainty than they did before June 2025.

What to do if you are getting unwanted calls, texts or faxes

Keep records now, because the legal theory may be argued later. Save screenshots of texts, note the date and time of each call, and keep fax copies, including ones that arrived by email. Our call log and evidence guide shows what to write down.

If your situation depends on an FCC rule rather than the plain statute, have a lawyer look at how courts in your circuit have ruled since June 2025. The answer may differ depending on where you live. A case review costs nothing and tells you whether your facts fit a claim that still holds up.