Compliance
Is it legal to call and text webinar registrants?
Updated
In the United States, calling or texting someone who registered for your webinar is lawful when you hold the consent the TCPA requires for that kind of call, and unlawful when you do not. Using an AI voice does not change that answer. Since February 2024 the FCC has treated an AI-generated, human-sounding voice as an artificial voice under the statute, which means every rule that has governed prerecorded robocalls since 1991 governs an AI call as well.
So the real question is never “is AI calling legal.” It is which consent standard the call falls under, and which mechanics rules bind you no matter what the registrant agreed to. Both are answerable from primary sources, and both are set out below.
This is not legal advice
“Got a call from an AI voice agent about selling my home — is this even legal?”
That is a homeowner's thread title, posted in r/RealEstate in March 2025[1], and it is the most common way the question actually arrives: from the person who received the call, not from the person thinking about buying the software. The statutory answer is that the call is not illegal because it was AI. It is illegal if the consent behind it was not there.
The FCC settled the AI half in a declaratory ruling adopted in February 2024. Its holding is that the TCPA's restrictions on an artificial or prerecorded voice reach AI technologies that generate a human-sounding voice, and that “callers must obtain prior express consent from the called party before making a call that utilizes artificial or prerecorded voice simulated or generated through AI technology”[2]. Voice cloning is inside the term because the technology “artificially simulates a human voice.”
What that ruling did and did not do
“I know pre-recorded robocalls are a gray area with the TCPA… but does that apply to AI voice agents too?”
Yes, and the structural point is worth more than the headline. The operative provision for a call to a mobile number makes it unlawful to make a call using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice[3] without prior express consent. The artificial-voice prong is independent of the autodialer prong. You do not need an autodialer to be inside the statute, and there is no way to engineer around it.
What consent buys you is real, and it is also narrower than people assume. A correctly constructed opt-in cures the consent question. It does not touch the mechanics rules, which bind regardless of what the registrant agreed to.
| The rule | Does consent settle it? | Source |
|---|---|---|
| An artificial-voice call to a mobile number | Yes — prior express consent, and prior express written consent where the call includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing | 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii); 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(1)–(2) |
| Marketing text messages | Yes, on the same written consent, provided the consent names text messages | 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(2) |
| A number on the National Do Not Call Registry | Yes, where there is prior express invitation or permission evidenced by a signed, written agreement naming the seller and the number | 47 CFR § 64.1200(c)(2) |
| Identifying who is responsible for the call | No — required at the beginning of the message regardless | 47 CFR § 64.1200(b)(1) |
| Quiet hours — before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time at the called party's location | No | 47 CFR § 64.1200(c)(1); 16 CFR § 310.4(c) |
| A revocation of consent | No — consent is revocable, and the request must be honoured within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days | 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(10) |
| Whether the call counts as telemarketing at all | No — that turns on the purpose of the message, not on the form | Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, 705 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2012) |
| Consent given to a different named seller | No — a written agreement evidences willingness to receive calls from a specific seller | 16 CFR § 310.4(b)(1)(v) |
Is the TCPA “not enforceable” if the call is for informational purposes?
The most confidently repeated wrong answer in this area
The split comes from a 2012 FCC order, and reading its own sentence settles the point. In FCC 12-21 the Commission said it would “revise our rules to require prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and residential lines and accordingly eliminate the established business relationship exemption for such calls to residential lines while maintaining flexibility in the form of consent needed for purely informational calls”[4]. Flexibility in the form of consent is not the absence of consent, and it is certainly not unenforceability.
The second half of the folk answer is that you can keep a call on the informational side of the line by keeping the offer out of the script. Courts have looked at that argument and gone the other way. In Chesbro v. Best Buy Storesthe Ninth Circuit rejected a “purely informational courtesy calls” framing and said it would “approach the problem with a measure of common sense”[5], holding that “[n]either the statute nor the regulations require an explicit mention of a good, product, or service where the implication is clear from the context. Any additional information provided in the calls does not inoculate them.”
And the FCC has said, construing the same statutory term, that messages promoting goods or services “even at no cost, such as free magazine subscriptions, catalogs, or free consultations or seminars, are unsolicited advertisements”[6], adding that “[i]n many instances, ‘free’ seminars serve as a pretext to advertise commercial products and services” and that such communications, “if not purely ‘transactional,’” require permission beforehand. That was a fax ruling, not a voice ruling, so it does not bind the voice analysis — but a free training whose purpose is to sell a program is the paradigm case it describes.
The one decision that cuts the other way, and its limits
Which is why the useful frame is not “are we informational.” It is that the standard rises with the content of the call. A message about the event someone registered for and a message pitching the offer are different calls carrying different consent standards, and the strict one is the one worth building the form around.
| The contact | Its character | Consent standard |
|---|---|---|
| A text thread opened when they register, about the session they signed up for | Informational | Prior express consent |
| A call before the session confirming they are coming | Informational | Prior express consent |
| A message or call after the session that pitches the offer or drives the deadline | Marketing | Prior express written consent |
The consequence is a design rule rather than a legal opinion: build the registration form for the strictest contact you intend to make, not for the first one. What that form has to contain is set out on what your opt-in form must say.
“They only ticked a box for a free webinar” — is that enough?
A ticked box is either the strongest document in the file or the weakest, and the difference is what the box said, who it named, and whether you can still produce it. The regulation defines prior express written consent as an agreement in writing bearing the signature of the person called, authorising the seller to deliver advertisements or telemarketing messages using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice, naming the number, and carrying a clear and conspicuous disclosure that consent is not a condition of purchase — with electronic and digital signatures expressly recognised (47 CFR § 64.1200(f)(9))[7].
The consent exists, in the seller's own name
A signed written agreement authorising marketing calls and texts using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice, naming the number and stating that consent is not a condition of purchase. Consent runs to the entity named on the form: a registrant who consented to one coach has not consented to a different one, or to a service provider in the abstract.
The evidence is retrievable, not asserted
The consent text exactly as it was displayed, the version of the form, the timestamp, the IP, the page URL and the affirmative state of the checkbox. Under the FCC's revocation order the burden of proving consent sits on the caller, so a consent you cannot produce is a consent you do not have.
The list is scrubbed before anything dials
The National Do Not Call Registry, the seller's own internal do-not-call list, and a suppression ledger that spans every client and every channel. A do-not-call request must be honoured for five years from the time it is made (47 CFR § 64.1200(d)(6)).
The clock is checked at dial time, in their time zone
Quiet hours run before 8 a.m. and after 9 p.m. local time at the called party's location — not the caller's, and not the area code's. A call queued inside the window and dialled outside it is still outside it.
Revocation stops everything, everywhere
A revocation may be made by any reasonable means, and the caller may not designate a single exclusive channel for it. Detecting it in ordinary conversational speech and in free-text replies — not only in keywords — is a compliance control rather than a nicety, and the correct response is to acknowledge and stop, never to rebut.
None of that tells you whether the form on your own registration page clears the bar. It tells you what the bar is made of.
“Did you honor the National Do Not Call Registry?”
That question was put to a small-business owner who had just described being sued, and the rest of the reply is the part operators miss: “Having them opting out with you doesn't work. You must have obtained prior express written consent if you used an autodialer or prerecorded messages.” [8] An internal opt-out list is not a substitute for the registry, and the person who wrote that then named the statutory penalties correctly.
A webinar registration does create a relationship, and it is shorter than most people think. Under 47 CFR § 64.1200(f)(5) an inquiry or application regarding the entity's products or services within the three months preceding the call creates an established business relationship. A registrant who signed up a hundred days ago is already outside it.
Two gates, not one
There is a second federal regime that people forget entirely. The FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule applies independently of the TCPA, under a different statute, and it requires an express agreement in writing naming a specific seller, with the recipient's telephone number and signature[9] for prerecorded telemarketing, along with prompt oral disclosures of the seller's identity and that the purpose of the call is to sell.
State law then sits on top of both. Washington, for example, prohibits use of an “automatic dialing and announcing device” — defined to include a “recorded or artificial voice message” — “for purposes of commercial solicitation”[10], where commercial solicitation is defined as an unsolicitedinitiation of a call encouraging a purchase. California's Public Utilities Code § 2874[11] requires an unrecorded, natural voice announcement before an automatic dialing-announcing device operates, which must state the nature of the call, ask whether the person consents to hear the prerecorded message, and inform them if it uses an artificial voice. Whether and how § 2874 reaches a real-time conversational agent is an open question we do not take a position on, and it is exactly the kind of question that belongs with California counsel before a first call, not after.
“Who gets sued — me, you, or my client?”
Both sides of the arrangement, on two different theories, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. Section 227(b) reaches the person who makes or initiates the call, so the entity physically placing it is directly exposed. Being the vendor is what makes you the maker; it is not a defence.
The seller is exposed separately. In its 2013 DISH Network declaratory ruling the FCC concluded that “a seller does not generally initiate calls made through a third-party telemarketer, [but] it nonetheless may be vicariously liable under federal common law agency-related principles for violations of either section 227(b) or 227(c) committed by telemarketers”[12], including through apparent authority and ratification. Calling under a client's brand, with the client's name stated in the call and the client's registration page as the source of consent, is the fact pattern that ruling describes.
Why that shapes how the work is packaged
What does any of this look like inside the calls themselves?
Law is law and practice is practice, so this part is ours rather than the regulator's. These are the artifacts we operate with; they are not a representation about anybody else's setup, and they are not a claim that following them makes a campaign compliant.
- Consent is captured per client, in the client's name. Never pooled across clients, never reused, never inherited from a list somebody bought.
- The assistant says it is an assistant. Not because a federal rule currently requires it — no adopted federal rule does — but because it removes real exposure and because buyers asked for it. The wording lives on what it says.
- Who is responsible is stated at the start. The client's registered legal entity name, matching the entity named on the consent form.
- An opt-out is treated as an instruction, not an objection. Detected in ordinary speech and in free-text replies, acknowledged, never rebutted, and propagated across every channel rather than the one it arrived on.
- Quiet hours are enforced when the call is placed, against the registrant's local time rather than the client's.
- Calls are recorded and kept, which is what makes any of the above checkable rather than asserted.
Across hundreds of advertisers in the AI-calling market, exactly one leads with compliance as a claim. We do not think that is because the topic is unimportant. It is because it is unglamorous, it is checkable, and it is easier to say “24/7” instead. How many touches a registrant actually receives, and on what triggers, is set out on the sequence.
Frequently asked questions
Not by virtue of being AI. The FCC's February 2024 declaratory ruling (FCC 24-17) held that the TCPA's restrictions on an artificial or prerecorded voice reach AI technologies that generate a human-sounding voice, and that callers must obtain prior express consent before placing such a call. It regulated AI voice the way prerecorded robocalls have been regulated since 1991 rather than prohibiting it. Whether any particular call is lawful turns on the consent behind it and on the mechanics rules that apply regardless of consent.
No. That is a widely repeated misreading. The split is real but narrower than the folk version: FCC 12-21 required prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and residential lines and eliminated the established business relationship exemption for those calls, while maintaining flexibility in the form of consent needed for purely informational calls. Informational calls still need prior express consent. Nothing is exempt.
Not on its own. In FCC 06-42 the Commission concluded that messages promoting goods or services even at no cost, including free consultations or seminars, are unsolicited advertisements, and noted that free seminars often serve as a pretext to advertise commercial products and services, unless the communication is purely transactional. In Chesbro v. Best Buy the Ninth Circuit held that neither the statute nor the regulations require an explicit mention of a good where the implication is clear from context, and that additional information in a call does not inoculate it.
It answers a different question. A webinar registration is an inquiry, which under 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(5) creates an established business relationship for three months. That relationship is an exception to the do-not-call rules. It is not an exception to the artificial-or-prerecorded-voice consent requirement, and FCC 12-21 eliminated the established business relationship exemption for prerecorded telemarketing calls. They are two separate gates and you have to pass both.
Not as an adopted rule at the time of writing. FCC 24-84, a notice of proposed rulemaking released in August 2024, proposed adding a disclosure of AI-generated voice to 47 CFR 64.1200(b)(1) and a consent-time disclosure at 64.1200(a)(13). Both remain proposals. Several states legislate in this area independently, and California Public Utilities Code section 2874 requires an announcement that informs the person called if a prerecorded message uses an artificial voice. Our assistant identifies itself as an assistant regardless, which is a product decision rather than a reading of the law.
Not automatically, and any vendor telling you otherwise is describing a rule that is not in force. A recipient may revoke consent by any reasonable means, and the request must be honoured within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days under 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(10). The rule that would make a single opt-out apply across every channel at once has been delayed to 31 January 2027. So "same second" is a design decision rather than something the law hands you — ask what a vendor actually does about it, and hold them to the answer.
Both, on different theories. Section 227(b) reaches the person who makes or initiates the call, which is the entity placing it. Separately, the FCC's 2013 DISH Network declaratory ruling held that a seller who does not itself initiate the calls may nonetheless be vicariously liable under federal common law agency principles for violations committed by a third-party telemarketer, including through apparent authority and ratification. Statutory penalties under 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3) are $500 per violation, or up to $1,500 where the violation is willful or knowing.
No, and it is not written to. This page describes what named primary sources say. It does not assess your consent language, your records, your list history or the states you dial into, and it is not legal advice. Those are questions for a TCPA attorney looking at your actual form and your actual evidence file.
If you got here because you received one of these calls, the two documents worth asking about are the consent record and the suppression log — and what your opt-in form must say describes what the first one has to contain. If you got here as an operator, the honest next step is a TCPA attorney and your own form, not a vendor page. What our assistant actually says, word for word, is on what it says. Once more, plainly: this page is not legal advice and it does not assess anyone's compliance posture.
Founder & Operator, CallHush
Founder and operator of CallHush. The offer is one sentence: you run a webinar, and we increase your show-up rate and your post-webinar sales with an AI voice and SMS system. CallHush has no closed clients yet — the first engagement is a pilot run as a split of the client’s own registrant list, and nothing on this site is presented as a client result.
View all articles