Quick answer: Yes, AI cold calling is legal in the US with consent. The FCC ruled in February 2024 (FCC 24-17) that AI-generated voices are “artificial” under the TCPA, so an AI sales call to a mobile or home number needs prior express written consent; business landlines fall outside that rule. Damages: $500 per violation, up to $1,500 if wilful or knowing.
Read from the instruments on 2 October 2026: 47 U.S.C. § 227, 47 CFR § 64.1200, FCC 24-17, the FTC’s 16 CFR Part 310, court decisions and Florida’s statute. This describes the text; it is not legal advice.
Is AI cold calling legal in the US?
Yes. Four layers stack:
- The TCPA requires prior express consent, with exemptions, for artificial-voice calls to mobiles, residential lines and other listed lines.
- 47 CFR § 64.1200 requires written consent for telemarketing, plus identification, opt-out, calling-hour and Do Not Call duties.
- The FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule has its own written-agreement rule for prerecorded sales messages.
- State law: “mini-TCPAs” such as Florida’s, and state AI-disclosure statutes.
The pivot is the word “artificial”. For an AI sales call to a US mobile or home number, the answer is “legal with prior express written consent, unlawful without it”. The boundary: a business landline is not one of the line types the TCPA’s consent limbs name, though the identification rules still apply and state law may differ.
What FCC 24-17 decided about AI voices
The FCC adopted Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17 on 2 February 2024 and released it on 8 February 2024, effective on release (CG Docket No. 23-362). Paragraph 2: “we confirm that the TCPA’s restrictions on the use of ‘artificial or prerecorded voice’ encompass current AI technologies that generate human voices.”
- Generated and cloned voices are both covered (paragraph 5), because “a person is not speaking them”.
- No live-agent carve-out. The TCPA “does not allow for any carve out of technologies that purport to provide the equivalent of a live agent” (paragraph 6).
- A human in the loop does not change it. Applying the 2020 Soundboard Ruling, a live operator choosing the audio “does not negate the clear statutory prohibition” (paragraph 8).
- Telemarketing means written consent (footnote 13), plus the 64.1200(b) duties (paragraph 9).
The counterweight: on 20 June 2025, in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., a TCPA case, the Supreme Court held that “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.” FCC 24-17 is the regulator’s reading, not the last word in a private suit. But the ruling cites a Ninth Circuit case, Trim v. Reward Zone USA (2023), describing an artificial voice as including “a sound resembling a human voice that is originated by artificial intelligence”, so arguing otherwise starts uphill.
The two TCPA limbs an AI sales call has to clear
227(b)(1)(A) bars any call “using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice”, other than one for emergency purposes or with the called party’s prior express consent, to:
- emergency lines (911, and those of hospitals, medical offices, health care facilities, poison control, fire and law enforcement);
- guest or patient rooms of a hospital, health care facility, elderly home or similar establishment;
- numbers assigned to a paging, cellular, specialized mobile radio or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call.
Clause (iii) has no residential qualifier: a mobile number is covered whether its owner uses it for business or personal calls. The clause still prints an exception for collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States; the Supreme Court invalidated and severed it in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (6 July 2020). The FCC may exempt mobile calls not charged to the called party (227(b)(2)(C)) and has done so in 64.1200(a)(9) for four conditional categories: package delivery, inmate collect-call services, financial institutions and healthcare providers.
227(b)(1)(B) bars any call “to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party”, except emergency calls, calls made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States (Barr did not rule on this limb’s copy of that exception), and calls the FCC exempts under 227(b)(2)(B). That power reaches only non-commercial calls and commercial calls that “do not include the transmission of any unsolicited advertisement” and will not adversely affect privacy, so no sales call qualifies.
The autodialler definition needs a “random or sequential number generator” (227(a)(1)); for an AI agent that rarely matters, because the voice, not the dialler, brings the call inside both limbs.
When consent has to be written: 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(2) and (a)(3)
64.1200(a)(2): a call to an emergency line, care room, mobile or other charged service that includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing, using an autodialler or artificial or prerecorded voice, needs prior express written consent. Two carve-outs: plain prior express consent suffices for a tax-exempt nonprofit, and a HIPAA “health care” message from a covered entity or business associate is outside the written-consent requirement.
64.1200(a)(3): an artificial-voice message to a residential line that includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing needs prior express written consent. Five kinds of artificial-voice call need no consent:
- emergency calls;
- non-commercial calls, at most three in any consecutive 30 days, with opt-outs honoured under 64.1200(b) and (d);
- commercial calls that are not advertising or telemarketing, on the same conditions;
- calls by or for a tax-exempt nonprofit, on the same conditions;
- HIPAA health care messages, at most one call a day and three a week per patient’s line, with opt-outs honoured.
Above those limits, prior express consent is needed. None of the five covers a sales call.
Prior express written consent is defined in 64.1200(f)(9): a written agreement, signed by the person called, that clearly authorises the seller to deliver advertisements or telemarketing using an autodialler or artificial or prerecorded voice, and names the number. It must clearly and conspicuously disclose that (A) signing authorises those calls and (B) signing is not a condition of buying anything. An electronic signature counts if federal law or state contract law recognises it. Wording and records: see our guide to consent language for AI calls.
Call type × line type × consent: the threshold table
The third column is the federal floor before state law.
| Call | Line called | Federal consent needed (TCPA + 64.1200) | Other federal duties |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI or other artificial voice, sales or advertising | Mobile (personal or business use) | Prior express written consent: 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), 64.1200(a)(2) | 64.1200(b) identification and opt-out; National DNC Registry and company DNC list to the extent 64.1200(e) extends them |
| AI or other artificial voice, sales or advertising | Residential landline | Prior express written consent: 227(b)(1)(B), 64.1200(a)(3) | 64.1200(b); 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. local time; National DNC Registry; company DNC list |
| AI or other artificial voice, sales or advertising | Business landline (not mobile, not residential) | None in the text of 227(b)(1)(A) or (B) (unless an emergency line, a hospital/care room, or a service for which the called party is charged for the call) | 64.1200(b) and 227(d)(3) identification still apply to “all” artificial voice messages; most of the FTC TSR does not apply to business-to-business calls; check state law |
| AI voice, commercial but not sales (reminder, service update) | Mobile | Prior express consent (need not be written): 227(b)(1)(A), 64.1200(a)(1) | 64.1200(b)(1) and (2) identification |
| AI voice, commercial but not sales | Residential landline | None for up to 3 calls in any 30 days with opt-outs honoured; prior express consent above that: 64.1200(a)(3)(iii) | 64.1200(b) including automated opt-out; company DNC procedures under 64.1200(d) |
| AI voice, tax-exempt nonprofit | Mobile / residential | Prior express consent (mobile); none up to 3 calls in 30 days (residential): 64.1200(a)(2), (a)(3)(iv) | 64.1200(b); company DNC procedures |
| AI voice, emergency purposes | Any | None: 227(b)(1)(A) and (B) | 64.1200(b)(1) and (2) identification |
| Live human using recorded or AI-generated clips (soundboard) | Mobile / residential | Treated as artificial or prerecorded voice: FCC 24-17 ¶8, so the AI rows above apply | As the AI rows |
| Live human voice, sales, numbers dialled without a random or sequential number generator | Mobile / residential | No 227(b) consent needed | National DNC Registry unless exempt; 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.; company DNC list; FTC TSR |
The voice decides whether consent is needed, the line decides whether the consent rule reaches you at all, and the purpose decides whether the consent must be written. We call it the voice–line–purpose test. Run it per number, because one list mixes line types.
What an AI voice has to say on the call: 64.1200(b)
Paragraph (b) applies to “all artificial or prerecorded voice telephone messages”, sales or not:
- Identity first. At the beginning, state clearly who is responsible for the call; for a business, its name as registered with the State Corporation Commission or comparable authority.
- A call-back number during or after the message, not the autodialler’s, and not a 900 number or other number charged above local or long-distance rates. For telemarketing, and for (a)(3)(ii) to (v) exempt messages to residential subscribers, it must accept do-not-call requests in business hours.
- An automated opt-out within two seconds of the identification (voice or key press, with brief instructions) for telemarketing to a residential or (a)(1)(i) to (iii) line, or an (a)(3)(ii) to (v) exempt call. It must add the number to your do-not-call list and end the call; a voicemail must give a toll-free number reaching it.
227(d)(3) repeats the first two and requires the line to be released within 5 seconds of a hang-up. Separately, 64.1200(d)(4) makes telemarketers give “the name of the individual caller”, the entity’s name and a contact number or address; how an AI agent meets “the name of the individual caller” is a question for counsel. None of this is an “I am an AI” disclosure: that duty, where it exists, is state law (see below).
64.1200(a)(7) caps abandoned calls (no live representative within two seconds of the greeting) at 3% of live-answered telemarketing calls per campaign per 30 days, but under (a)(7)(ii) an artificial-voice message to a line with prior express written consent is not abandoned if it begins within two seconds of the completed greeting.
Do Not Call, calling hours and opt-outs for AI sales calls
Paragraph (c) covers any “telephone solicitation”, human or AI, which excludes calls with prior express invitation or permission, calls within an established business relationship, and tax-exempt nonprofit calls (64.1200(f)(15)). That relationship needs a purchase or transaction within 18 months, or an inquiry or application within 3 months, not since ended by either party; a do-not-call request to the seller ends it (64.1200(f)(5)).
- Calling hours, 64.1200(c)(1): no solicitation to a residential subscriber before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., local time at the called party’s location.
- National Do Not Call Registry, 64.1200(c)(2): registrations are honoured indefinitely, or until cancelled by the consumer or removed by the administrator. The safe harbour for an erroneous call has five standards: written procedures, trained personnel, a recorded do-not-call list, a registry copy no more than 31 days old (with records), and purchased registry access with no cost-sharing. A signed written agreement naming the number, or a personal relationship with the recipient, are separate defences.
- Your own list, 64.1200(d): anyone making telemarketing calls to residential subscribers, or (a)(3)(ii) to (v) exempt artificial-voice calls, needs a written policy available on demand, trained personnel and a record of each request, honoured within 10 business days and for 5 years.
- Revocation, 64.1200(a)(10): consent, including written consent, can be revoked “by using any reasonable method”; you may not designate an exclusive means, and must honour it within 10 business days. The rule’s per se list includes an automated voice or key-press opt-out on the call, and under 64.1200(a)(11) any other means creates a rebuttable presumption of revocation, so treat a clear spoken “stop calling me” as revocation too.
Paragraph (e) extends (c) and (d) to wireless numbers “to the extent described” in the FCC’s 2003 order FCC 03-153.
For an AI phone agent, consent, scrub date and revocation are CRM fields. Dial only records with a consent timestamp and a scrub inside 31 days, and write a revocation heard on a call back to the record. Zian’s phone agents connect to HubSpot, Salesforce, HighLevel and Zapier, where those fields live.
Apply For Partnership to run Zian’s phone, SMS, email and WhatsApp agents during the partnership-application beta.
Is the FCC one-to-one consent rule in force?
No, as at 2 October 2026. The FCC’s 2023 Second Report and Order (Part III.D) said a consumer could consent to telemarketing robocalls only from one entity at a time, and only to calls “logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted the consent”. On 24 January 2025 the Eleventh Circuit, in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC (No. 24-10277), vacated Part III.D and remanded, holding the restrictions “impermissibly conflict with the ordinary statutory meaning of ‘prior express consent.’” It noted the FCC’s 2012 order requiring written consent for telemarketing robocalls “is not at issue”, so 64.1200(a)(2) and (a)(3) stand.
The mandate issued on 30 April 2025. The FCC’s Order DA 25-621, at 90 FR 42137, effective 29 August 2025, “reinstates in the Commission’s rules the prior version of § 64.1200(f)(9)”, noting the revised rule “had not gone into effect”. The eCFR text read on 2 October 2026 has neither restriction. That did not make lead-generator consent safe; see our page on purchased lead lists and AI voice agents.
The FCC’s 2024 AI-disclosure proposal (NPRM 24-84; see our guide to the pending FCC AI-call disclosure rules) is still only proposed: as at 2 October 2026 the Federal Register lists no final rule in CG Docket 23-362.
The FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule is a second federal layer
Under 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(v), an outbound sales call delivering a prerecorded message (HIPAA healthcare messages aside) needs an express written agreement that:
- was obtained only after a clear and conspicuous disclosure that its purpose is to authorise prerecorded calls;
- was not required, directly or indirectly, as a condition of purchase;
- shows willingness to receive prerecorded calls by or for a specific seller; and
- includes the person’s telephone number and signature.
The call must ring for 15 seconds or four rings, and within two seconds of the greeting play the TSR disclosures and an automated opt-out (a toll-free opt-out number for voicemail). Under 310.4(c), calls to a residence outside 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. local time need prior consent.
Two limits: telemarketing under 310.2 needs “more than one interstate telephone call”, and 310.6(b)(7) exempts calls to a business to induce a purchase by the business, except that the bans on misrepresentation (310.3(a)(2)) and false or misleading statements (310.3(a)(4)) still apply and sales of nondurable office or cleaning supplies are not exempt. FCC 24-17 interprets the TCPA, not the TSR, and 310.2 does not define “prerecorded message”; treating an AI voice as one is the cautious reading.
What a TCPA violation costs: the damages arithmetic
Under 227(b)(3), a recipient can sue for an injunction, actual loss or $500 “for each such violation, whichever is greater”, or both. If the breach was wilful or knowing, the court may raise the award to “not more than 3 times” that: $1,500 per violation. The Do Not Call right, 227(c)(5), needs “more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity”, awards “up to $500” per violation (also trebled), and gives a defence for reasonable practices and procedures implemented with due care. Separately, the FCC can impose forfeitures (227(b)(4)), and a state attorney general can sue for $500 per violation, up to three times that if wilful or knowing (227(g)).
A worked example with illustrative inputs, assuming each call without provable consent is one violation (counting is for the court):
| Step | Input | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Numbers on the list | 4,000 | 4,000 |
| Mobile or residential numbers where written consent cannot be produced | 250 (6.25% of 4,000) | 250 |
| AI calls placed to each of those numbers | 3 attempts | 250 × 3 = 750 calls |
| Statutory damages, 227(b)(3)(B) | $500 per violation | 750 × $500 = $375,000 |
| Ceiling if wilful or knowing | up to 3 times | 750 × $1,500 = $1,125,000 |
| Of the 250, residential numbers on the National DNC Registry | 40 numbers, 3 calls each in 12 months | 40 × 3 = 120 calls |
| Separate DNC claim ceiling, 227(c)(5)(B) | up to $500 per violation | 120 × $500 = up to $60,000 |
| DNC ceiling if wilful or knowing | up to 3 times | 120 × $1,500 = up to $180,000 |
Missing consent on 6.25% of a 4,000-number list, called three times each, is $375,000 of statutory exposure before any finding of wilfulness. Whether one call can recover under both 227(b) and 227(c) is for counsel. What 2026 settlements actually paid is in our analysis of TCPA settlements involving AI calling.
State mini-TCPAs and AI disclosure laws add a fourth layer
Under 2026 Florida Statutes 501.059(8)(a), no one may make an unsolicited telephonic sales call that “involves an automated system for the selection and dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed” without prior express written consent. It covers consumer goods or services only; four kinds of call are not “unsolicited” (at the person’s express request, mainly about an unfinished debt or contract, to a prior or existing business relationship, or by a newspaper publisher); and 501.059(10) gives $500 or actual damages, trebled if wilful or knowing. Florida says “recorded message”, not “artificial voice”, and does not say whether a generated voice is one.
State AI-disclosure duties are mapped in our state AI call-disclosure guide. The same question for other markets is answered in our pages on AI cold calling under the UK’s PECR, AI cold calling under Canada’s CRTC rules and AI cold calling under Germany’s UWG, and in our AI outreach compliance hub.
When this is a question for counsel
- calling business landlines without consent, especially into states with their own telemarketing statutes;
- any argument that your agent is not an “artificial voice”, given McLaughlin and FCC 24-17 together;
- how your agent gives “the name of the individual caller” under 64.1200(d)(4);
- calls that start as a reminder and move to an offer, since a call that “includes or introduces an advertisement” takes the written-consent rule;
- numbers reassigned since consent (64.1200(m) gives a limited safe harbour to callers who check the reassigned numbers database).
Frequently asked questions
Is AI cold calling legal in the US?
Yes, with consent for most numbers. FCC 24-17 treats AI-generated voices as “artificial” under the TCPA, so an AI sales call to a mobile or residential number needs prior express written consent under 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(2) and (a)(3). Business landlines fall outside those consent limbs.
Does an AI voice agent count as a robocall under the TCPA?
Yes. The FCC’s Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17 says the “artificial or prerecorded voice” restrictions “encompass current AI technologies that generate human voices” and allow no carve-out for technologies that “purport to provide the equivalent of a live agent”. Since McLaughlin (2025), district courts give that reading appropriate respect but are not bound by it.
Can I use AI to cold call businesses in the US?
It depends on the line. A business mobile is covered by 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) like any mobile, so an AI sales call to it needs prior express written consent. A business landline is outside the TCPA consent limbs (unless it is an emergency line or a service for which the called party is charged for the call), but the identification rules in 64.1200(b) still apply and state law may differ.
Do I need written consent for AI sales calls?
For telemarketing to a mobile or residential number, yes, unless you are a tax-exempt nonprofit. 64.1200(f)(9) defines it as a signed written agreement naming the number, disclosing that signing authorises the calls and is not a condition of purchase. Non-sales AI calls to a mobile need prior express consent, not necessarily written.
Is the FCC one-to-one consent rule still in effect?
No. The Eleventh Circuit vacated it on 24 January 2025 in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, and the FCC reinstated the prior written-consent definition effective 29 August 2025 (90 FR 42137). As at 2 October 2026 the eCFR shows that prior text. The written-consent requirement for telemarketing calls still stands.
What are the penalties for illegal AI calls in the US?
Under 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3), a person can sue for actual loss or $500 per violation, whichever is greater, and a court may raise that to up to $1,500 per violation for a wilful or knowing breach. The TCPA’s separate Do Not Call claim needs more than one call in 12 months and allows up to $500 per violation, also trebled. The FCC can also impose forfeitures under 227(b)(4), and state attorneys general can sue under 227(g).
Where every figure on this page comes from
| Figure | Who published it | Link | Date read |
|---|---|---|---|
| 227(a)(1) autodialler definition; 227(b)(1)(A)(i) to (iii) and (b)(1)(B) wording and exceptions; 227(b)(2)(B) and (C); $500 per violation and “not more than 3 times” (227(b)(3)); “more than one telephone call within any 12-month period”, “up to $500” and the due-care defence (227(c)(5)); 5-second line release (227(d)(3)(B)); FCC forfeitures (227(b)(4)); state attorney-general actions, $500 and up to 3 times (227(g)) | US Code, 47 U.S.C. § 227, via Cornell Legal Information Institute | law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 | 2 October 2026 |
| 64.1200(a)(1) to (a)(3) including the five (a)(3) exemptions, 3 calls per 30 days, 1 per day and 3 per week; (a)(6) 15 seconds or 4 rings; (a)(7) 3% abandonment, 30 days, 2 seconds; (a)(9) four categories; (a)(10) 10 business days; (a)(11) rebuttable presumption; (b)(1) to (3) and the 2-second opt-out; (c)(1) 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.; (c)(2) safe harbour and 31 days; (d) 10 business days and 5 years; (e); (f)(5) 18 months and 3 months; (f)(9); (f)(15); (m) | Federal Communications Commission, 47 CFR § 64.1200, via eCFR (section version of 25 March 2026) | ecfr.gov, 47 CFR 64.1200 | 2 October 2026 |
| FCC 24-17 adopted 2 February 2024, released 8 February 2024, effective on release; CG Docket 23-362; paragraphs 2, 5, 6, 8, 9; footnotes 6, 13 and 16 (including the Trim v. Reward Zone USA quotation) | Federal Communications Commission | docs.fcc.gov, FCC-24-17A1.pdf | 2 October 2026 |
| Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277, filed 24 January 2025; Part III.D vacated and remanded; 2012 order “not at issue” | US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | media.ca11.uscourts.gov, 202410277.pdf | 2 October 2026 |
| Mandate 30 April 2025; Order DA 25-621 adopted 14 July 2025; effective 29 August 2025; 90 FR 42137; prior 64.1200(f)(9) reinstated; revised rule “had not gone into effect” | Federal Communications Commission, in the Federal Register | federalregister.gov, 2025-16641 | 2 October 2026 |
| NPRM in CG Docket 23-362 published 10 September 2024; no final rule listed as at 2 October 2026 | Office of the Federal Register | federalregister.gov, 2024-19028 | 2 October 2026 |
| McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., decided 20 June 2025; “appropriate respect” holding | Supreme Court of the United States | supremecourt.gov, 606us1r55 | 2 October 2026 |
| Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, decided 6 July 2020; government-debt exception invalidated and severed | Supreme Court of the United States | supremecourt.gov, 19-631 | 2 October 2026 |
| 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(v) four written-agreement elements, 15 seconds or 4 rings, 2 seconds; 310.4(c) 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; 310.2 “more than one interstate telephone call”; 310.6(b)(7) business exemption and its two exceptions | Federal Trade Commission, 16 CFR Part 310, via eCFR | ecfr.gov, 16 CFR Part 310 | 2 October 2026 |
| Florida 501.059(8)(a), (1)(c), (1)(k) four exclusions, (10) $500 and treble damages | Florida Legislature, 2026 Florida Statutes | leg.state.fl.us, s. 501.059 | 2 October 2026 |
| Worked damages example: 4,000 numbers, 250 (6.25%) without consent, 750 calls, $375,000, $1,125,000; 40 DNC numbers, 120 calls, up to $60,000 and $180,000 | Zian AI calculation from 227(b)(3) and 227(c)(5) (illustrative inputs, not data) | This page | 2 October 2026 |
What this means if you run an AI voice agent into the US
The US does not ban AI sales calls; it makes the generated voice the trigger. A sales call to a mobile or home number needs prior express written consent, identification and an automated opt-out, with Do Not Call and calling-hours rules on top; a business landline sits outside the consent rule but not the identification rule.