State-by-State Guide to AI Calling Laws, Part 2: What Changed Since June

In June we published the first state-by-state guide to AI calling laws, and it has drawn steady traffic since. I read that as a sign the underlying question has not gone away: who may we call, at what hour, with what consent, and what must the call say? Five months later the answers have moved enough to justify a second pass.

Some of that movement is new law. Some of it is a correction. In three places, part one stated something more firmly than the evidence supports, and I would rather say so here than let it sit on a page people use to make compliance decisions.

The short version

• Pennsylvania (Act 47 of 2026, Senate Bill 992) now limits telemarketing calls to 9 AM to 7 PM, bars Sundays and legal holidays, and requires prior express written consent for robocalls, a term that reaches artificial voice calls. It took effect in October 2026.
• The FCC's new opt-out rules take effect November 25, 2026. Opt-outs from informational calls can be limited to the category they were aimed at. A telemarketing opt-out still covers all of that caller's telemarketing.
• No federal rule requires an AI call to announce that it is AI. The FCC proposed one in 2024. As of this writing it has not adopted it. Part one said otherwise.
• The Fifth Circuit held in February that the TCPA does not require written consent for prerecorded or autodialed calls to cell phones. That binds federal courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, and nowhere else.
• Illinois biometric damages are now counted per person, not per scan, after a Seventh Circuit ruling in April.
• Florida has not passed a new AI-disclosure law for telemarketing. Part one said it had.

Federal: three things moved

The FCC's opt-out rules take effect November 25

The FCC's 2024 revocation rule had a provision, often called "revoke all," under which a consumer's opt-out from one kind of message would end every consent-based call and text from that caller. It was delayed more than once and never took effect. The FCC has now replaced it. The new order, FCC 26-67, was released October 1, 2026, and its rules take effect November 25, 2026.

What the order does, as law-firm summaries describe it:

• Informational calls and texts. An opt-out can be treated as covering only the category it was directed at. Declining debt-collection calls does not automatically decline appointment reminders.
• Telemarketing. One opt-out still ends all future telemarketing calls and texts from that caller.
• Designated opt-out methods. A caller may designate how consumers revoke consent: an automated voice or key-press option on the call, a reply to a text using one of seven standard words (stop, quit, end, revoke, opt out, cancel, unsubscribe), or a website or phone number the caller names. The method must be disclosed clearly. If you designate none, you must honor revocation by any reasonable means.
• The deadline. Honoring a revocation within 10 business days is unchanged. The FCC is separately taking comment on shortening it.

For an AI outbound program the practical step is to decide now which method you will designate, build it into the call flow, and say so on the call. An in-call key-press opt-out is the cleanest because it works at the moment the person decides.

The AI-disclosure rule is still a proposal

Part one said that federal FCC rules require AI-generated calls to disclose their artificial nature at the start. I cannot support that as stated. What the FCC adopted, in a February 2024 declaratory ruling, is that an AI-generated voice is an "artificial voice" under the TCPA, which means the call needs the recipient's prior consent. What it proposed, in a separate August 2024 notice (FCC 24-84), was a definition of an AI-generated call and a requirement to disclose AI use at the start. Comments closed in October 2024. We found no adopting order as of this month.

Federal rules do require a call to identify the business and its phone number at the start, and telemarketing calls to offer an automated opt-out. We still recommend disclosing the AI voice in the first seconds of every call. It is good practice, several state statutes point that way, and retrofitting it later costs more than building it in. But it is practice, not a federal mandate, and this post should not be cited as saying it is.

Two court decisions on who decides

In June 2025 the Supreme Court held in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson that district courts are not bound by the FCC's interpretations of the TCPA. The consequence is now visible. On February 25, 2026, the Fifth Circuit decided Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX and held that the statute requires only prior express consent, oral or written, for prerecorded or autodialed calls to cell phones, including telemarketing calls. The court rejected the FCC's written-consent rule on the text of the statute.

Do not read that as permission to loosen anything. It binds federal courts in three states. Everywhere else the FCC's written-consent rule is still the standard plaintiffs' lawyers will cite, and as of this writing it is unclear whether other circuits will follow. Pennsylvania, discussed next, went the other way and wrote written consent into its own statute. Keep written consent records.

The states that matter now

Pennsylvania

Governor Shapiro signed Senate Bill 992, now Act 47 of 2026, on July 20, 2026. It amends the state's Telemarketer Registration Act and took effect in October 2026; summaries cite October 18 or 19, so confirm against the act. It is the most consequential state change for AI outbound calling since part one, for four reasons.

Three details deserve more attention than the table gives them. First, the consent rule reaches robocalls to residential, business and wireless lines, so a B2B program is not outside it. Second, summaries read the "causing to be initiated" language to reach the company that hires a telemarketer, not only the one that dials, which matters if you use a vendor. Third, violations also fall under Pennsylvania's consumer-protection statute, which carries a private right of action. The statute keeps an established-business-relationship exception; summaries describe its terms differently, so read the text before relying on it.

Pennsylvania's all-party recording-consent rule, in part one's table, is unchanged. If you serve Ohio, western Pennsylvania is often the same service area, and a program built to Ohio's hours will now call people it may not.

Oregon

Oregon House Bill 3865, signed July 24, 2025 and reported as effective January 1, 2026, moves permitted calling hours to 8 AM to 8 PM, brings text messages into the definition of telephone solicitation, and makes more than three solicitations in 24 hours unlawful unless an established business relationship exists, meaning a transaction in the prior 18 months.

Illinois: the damages math changed

Part one described Illinois biometric exposure as $1,000 to $5,000 per violation. That framing omitted a 2024 amendment (SB 2979) providing that an aggrieved person is entitled to at most one recovery for repeated collection of the same biometric identifier by the same method. On April 1, 2026, in Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad, the Seventh Circuit held that the amendment applies to cases already pending. Exposure per person is lower than part one implied. It is not gone: claims are still being filed, and a large class still adds up. Our advice is unchanged. Do not collect or retain voiceprints, and get Illinois-specific review if your program analyzes anything about the voice beyond the transcript. We have not found a decision that settles whether voice analysis counts as biometric collection.

California: recording consent did not change

Governor Newsom signed SB 690 on September 30, 2026, effective January 1, 2027. It removes the private right of action for claims under the pen register and trap-and-trace section of CIPA (Penal Code § 638.51), leaving those claims to the Attorney General. It does not address Penal Code § 632, the all-party recording-consent rule in part one. California remains an all-party state for recorded calls.

Florida: a correction

Part one said Florida passed a bill in early 2026 tightening AI disclosure for telemarketing calls. We cannot support that. The sources we found report that Florida's 2025 and 2026 bills to amend its telemarketing law died in committee, and that a broader AI Bill of Rights, SB 482, died in the House in March 2026. Treat Florida as unchanged: all-party recording consent, the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, and no new AI-specific rule that we can identify.

If your calls trigger text follow-ups

• Pennsylvania lists seven opt-out keywords for texts: STOP, QUIT, END, REVOKE, OPT OUT, CANCEL, UNSUBSCRIBE.
• Virginia (effective January 1, 2026) requires a STOP or UNSUBSCRIBE reply to a sales text to be honored for at least 10 years.
• Oregon now treats texts as telephone solicitations, so its three-in-24-hours limit applies to them.

A few states, among them Utah and Maine, also have general AI-disclosure statutes that are not telemarketing laws. Vendor summaries say they can reach a voice agent in some settings. Whether either reaches a particular outbound call depends on facts we cannot assess here, so ask counsel before relying on them in either direction.

Calling hours: updates to part one's table

What to do before the end of the year

• Move every Pennsylvania number to a 9 AM to 7 PM window, Monday through Saturday, excluding legal holidays, measured in the recipient's time zone.
• Keep signed written-consent records for AI-voice calls into Pennsylvania, and treat that standard as the default everywhere else. The Fifth Circuit's decision is not a reason to relax it.
• Before November 25, choose your designated opt-out method, put it in the call flow, and disclose it. Honor revocations within 10 business days. Treat a telemarketing opt-out as covering all telemarketing from you.
• Check your text follow-ups against the seven standard opt-out keywords and the Virginia and Oregon rules.
• Keep the AI disclosure at the start of the call as practice, and do not describe it to anyone as a federal requirement.
• In Illinois, do not collect voice biometrics. Per-person damages are lower than we implied in June; class exposure remains.

Quick answers

Do federal rules require AI calls to say they are AI?

Not yet. The FCC proposed an AI-disclosure requirement in August 2024 and has not adopted it as of October 2026. Federal rules do require consent for artificial-voice calls and identification of the business at the start of the call. Part one of this guide said otherwise, and this post supersedes it on that point.

What changed in Pennsylvania's calling hours?

Under Act 47 of 2026, telemarketing calls are limited to 9 AM to 7 PM in the recipient's location, with no calls on Sundays or legal holidays. The previous window was 8 AM to 9 PM.

When do the FCC's new opt-out rules take effect?

November 25, 2026. Opt-outs from informational calls can be limited to the category they target, a telemarketing opt-out still covers all of that caller's telemarketing, and callers may designate how consumers revoke consent.

Did California's SB 690 change call-recording consent?

No. SB 690 limits private lawsuits under the pen register provision of CIPA, effective January 1, 2027. California's all-party consent rule for recorded calls, Penal Code § 632, is not part of it.

Sources

We relied on the following summaries. They are secondary sources; confirm against the enacted text and the FCC's order.

• Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck: new TCPA revocation rules take effect November 25
• Troutman Pepper Locke: FCC revises TCPA revocation of consent rules
• eConsent: AI voice agents and the TCPA in October 2026 (status of FCC 24-17 and 24-84)
• Nixon Peabody: Fifth Circuit on written consent (Bradford)
• TCPAWorld: Pennsylvania SB 992 signed
• InfoLawGroup: another state, another layer of calling and texting compliance (Pennsylvania Act 47)
• Ballard Spahr: Pennsylvania strengthens telemarketing protections
• Ballard Spahr: Oregon passes new telephone solicitation law
• Telemarketing.com: annual FCC and state regulation update, 2026 (Oregon, Virginia and Pennsylvania dates)
• Sidley Austin: Seventh Circuit on BIPA damages (Clay v. Union Pacific)
• Kelley Drye: California SB 690
• RecordingLaw: Florida AI laws and JustCall: state mini-TCPA laws in 2026 (Florida bills not enacted)
• JustCall: AI voice agent disclosure laws (Utah and Maine)