Ringless Voicemail TCPA Classification and Consent Rules
Courts and regulators increasingly classify ringless voicemail and soundboard technology as calls subject to strict TCPA consent rules.
For years, marketers and debt collectors sought a “magic bullet” technology that could bypass the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The logic seemed sound on paper: if the phone doesn’t ring, is it really a call? If a human agent controls the conversation but uses pre-recorded audio clips, is it really a robocall? These questions gave rise to Ringless Voicemail (RVM) and Soundboard (or Avatar) technologies. Proponents aggressively marketed these tools as TCPA-compliant loopholes, arguing they fell outside the statutory definitions of “calls” or “pre-recorded voices.”
However, the judicial and regulatory tide has turned decisively against these interpretations. Federal courts and the FCC have systematically dismantled the “no ring” defense, ruling that the intrusion into the consumer’s voicemail box constitutes a communication subject to the same consent requirements as a standard phone call. Similarly, “human-driven” soundboards have been classified as pre-recorded voice calls, triggering strict liability if used for telemarketing without prior express written consent. The compliance gap between what vendors sell and what courts enforce has become a primary vector for class-action litigation.
This article examines the current legal status of RVM and Soundboard technologies. We will clarify why “non-intrusive” delivery does not equal “non-regulated” communication, analyze the specific case law establishing these technologies as “calls,” and provide a compliance framework for businesses that wish to utilize these tools without incurring multimillion-dollar penalties.
Critical determination points for RVM and Soundboard risks:
- The “Effect” Test: Courts prioritize the effect on the consumer (filling up voicemail storage, notification lights) over the technical method of transmission.
- Pre-recorded Voice Trap: Soundboard technology is treated as a robocall because the audio is pre-recorded, even if a live human presses the buttons to play it.
- Strict Liability: Using either technology for marketing to mobile phones requires Prior Express Written Consent. There is no “safe harbor” for error here.
- State Law Aggravation: States like Florida and Oklahoma have explicitly updated their definitions to include RVM as “calls” subject to their mini-TCPA statutes.
See more in this category: Digital & Privacy Law
In this article:
Last updated: November 24, 2024.
Quick definition: Ringless Voicemail (RVM) inserts a message directly into a server-side voicemail box without ringing the handset. Soundboard technology allows a live agent to communicate by playing pre-recorded audio snippets.
Who it applies to: High-volume lead generation firms, debt collection agencies, automotive dealerships, and real estate investors using automated outreach tools to scale contact rates.
Time, cost, and documents:
- Proof of Consent: Visual records (TrustedForm/Jornaya) proving the consumer agreed to receive “pre-recorded messages.”
- Script Reviews: Audits of soundboard audio files to ensure they don’t violate harassment or deception standards.
- Litigation Cost: Damages are assessed per violation ($500–$1,500). A single RVM blast to 10,000 numbers can theoretically trigger a $15 million liability.
Key takeaways that usually decide disputes:
Further reading:
- Judicial Consensus: The argument that RVM is “not a call” has failed in almost every major district court decision (e.g., Saunders v. Dyck O’Neal).
- Consumer Perception: If the consumer sees a “missed call” notification or a new voicemail icon, the law treats it as a call.
- Vendor Indemnity: Relying on a vendor’s promise of “100% Legal” is not a defense in court; the caller is liable for the vendor’s technology.
Quick guide to RVM and Soundboard Compliance
Navigating these technologies requires abandoning the search for loopholes and accepting that they are regulated communications. The focus must shift from “avoiding classification” to “obtaining permission.”
- Treat RVM as a Call: Apply all DNC (Do Not Call) scrubbing and consent rules to ringless voicemail campaigns. Do not send them to cold leads.
- Treat Soundboard as a Robocall: Because the voice is not live, you need the highest level of consent (Written) for marketing purposes.
- The “1-to-1” Defense is Weak: Arguing that a soundboard agent is “selecting” the response individually rarely defeats class certification if the intent is mass marketing.
- Identify the Sender: Both technologies must legally identify the calling entity and provide a callback number at the beginning of the message.
- Honor Opt-Outs Immediately: If a consumer replies to an RVM or tells a soundboard agent to “stop,” that revocation is absolute and immediate.
Understanding RVM and Soundboard in practice
The core legal debate regarding Ringless Voicemail centered on the definition of a “call.” Vendors argued that since RVM technology communicates server-to-server (bypassing the cellular network’s switching center that triggers a ring), it was a “data transfer,” not a telephone call. Federal courts, however, have looked past the engineering schematics to the practical impact. In Saunders v. Dyck O’Neal, the court held that the TCPA was designed to protect consumers from intrusive communications, and a voicemail appearing on a phone is undeniably a communication that consumes the user’s time and storage.
Consequently, RVM is now generally treated as a “call” made using a pre-recorded voice. This is the “poison pill” for compliance: the TCPA prohibits calls to cell phones using “an artificial or prerecorded voice” without consent. Since an RVM is, by definition, a pre-recorded audio file, it falls squarely into this prohibition unless the recipient has given prior express consent (for informational messages) or prior express written consent (for marketing).
Soundboard technology faces a similar fate. The FCC has issued rulings clarifying that even if a live human agent is “driving” the call by pressing buttons to play audio clips, the presence of a pre-recorded voice triggers the statute. This closed the “Avatar” loophole. While soundboards are valuable for ensuring script compliance and accent neutralization, they cannot be used to cold-call mobile numbers for telemarketing purposes. They are functionally treated as robocalls.
Hierarchy of Regulatory Risk:
- High Risk (Red Zone): Sending RVM marketing drops to purchased lists (Cold Data). This is a strict liability violation of the pre-recorded voice ban.
- High Risk (Red Zone): Using Soundboard/Avatar for outbound lead generation without specific written consent for “pre-recorded voice.”
- Medium Risk (Orange Zone): Using RVM for debt collection or informational alerts. Allowed with “Prior Express Consent,” but revocation (Stop) requests are hard to track.
- Low Risk (Green Zone): Using Soundboard with fully compliant, opted-in leads where the disclosure specifically authorized “automated technology and pre-recorded messages.”
Legal and practical angles that change the outcome
The “Mini-TCPA” laws in states like Florida, Washington, and Oklahoma have accelerated the risk. Florida’s CS/SB 1120, for example, defines a “telephonic sales call” broadly enough to capture RVM and text messages, and it removes some of the “autodialer” defenses that might work at the federal level. In these states, the technical argument that “no ring occurred” is explicitly overridden by legislative intent to protect privacy.
Documentation quality often determines the outcome of soundboard disputes. Plaintiffs will allege they spoke to a “robot.” The defense must prove a human was present. This requires detailed logs showing the exact time the agent logged in, the specific buttons pressed during the call, and the agent’s identity. If the system is fully automated (playing responses without human input), it is a classic illegal robocall. If it is “human-assisted,” it is still a pre-recorded voice call, but arguably defensible if consent exists.
Workable paths parties actually use to resolve this
When companies are hit with RVM lawsuits, the “technical defense” (it wasn’t a call) is increasingly abandoned in favor of the “consent defense.” The strategy shifts to proving that the plaintiff visited a website, saw a clear disclosure, and clicked “Submit.” This is why pairing RVM/Soundboard tech with high-quality proofs of consent (like TrustedForm) is the only viable path for marketers.
For debt collectors, the path is slightly different. They often rely on the “Existing Business Relationship” or the fact that the consumer provided their number to the original creditor. However, RVM creates a unique problem: if the debtor has revoked consent (e.g., “Don’t call me”), an RVM drop violates that revocation just as a standard call would. The “sneakiness” of RVM often angers judges in these contexts, leading to higher damage awards.
Practical application of RVM and Soundboard workflows
To use these technologies safely, businesses must integrate them into a compliance-first architecture, treating them as high-risk channels that require premium data hygiene.
- Audit the Lead Source: Before loading any data into an RVM platform, verify the consent language. Did the user agree to “pre-recorded messages”? If the disclosure only said “calls,” it may be insufficient for RVM/Soundboard.
- Scrub the DNC: Run the list against the National Do Not Call Registry and your Internal DNC list. Even though RVM doesn’t “ring,” it is a telemarketing communication subject to DNC rules.
- Identify the Entity: Ensure the audio file (for RVM) or the opening script (for Soundboard) immediately identifies the company name and the purpose of the call. Hidden identity is a separate violation.
- Provide a Callback Mechanism: The message must leave a number that consumers can call to opt out. A “dead end” message is a regulatory red flag.
- Monitor “Reply” Channels: RVM drops often generate callbacks or texts. Agents must be trained to recognize “Take me off your list” coming from these responses and suppress the number immediately.
- Retain Interaction Logs: For soundboards, keep the “keystroke log” that proves a human agent was selecting the responses. This differentiates the technology from pure AI IVR (Interactive Voice Response).
Technical details and relevant updates
The technical distinction between RVM and traditional calls lies in the signaling protocols. RVM typically utilizes server-to-server communication (often via SIP bypass) to access the voicemail platform directly. However, the FCC has consistently signaled that the *consumer experience* defines the regulation. If the consumer receives a notification, it is a call. Recently, carrier networks have begun blocking RVM traffic at the network level, flagging it as “spam” or “scam likely,” which reduces the viability of the channel regardless of legality.
For Soundboard technology, the relevant update concerns the “Pyramid Scheme” rulings and the FTC’s crackdown on “Avatar” telemarketing. The FTC has stated that if a consumer asks, “Are you a robot?” and the soundboard plays a pre-recorded “I am a real person” (or similar evasion), it constitutes a deceptive trade practice. The system must allow the agent to intervene or truthfully disclose the use of assisted technology.
- FCC Declaratory Ruling (Soundboard): Explicitly states that soundboard calls are subject to the TCPA’s ban on pre-recorded voice calls to cell phones without consent.
- Carrier Filtering (STIR/SHAKEN): RVM traffic often fails STIR/SHAKEN authentication because it bypasses standard origination points, leading to low delivery rates.
- Storage Limits: RVMs that fill up a consumer’s mailbox, preventing them from receiving legitimate calls (e.g., from doctors or family), are cited by courts as evidence of “harm” sufficient to grant standing for lawsuits.
Statistics and scenario reads
The litigation landscape for RVM and Soundboard is active and punitive. Unlike “wrong number” cases which might be dismissed as accidental, these cases involve intentional use of mass-communication technology. Courts rarely accept “we didn’t know it was a call” as a valid defense, leading to high settlement pressure.
Judicial Outcomes for RVM/Soundboard Claims
60%
Courts readily certify classes due to the uniform nature of the technology.
30%
Companies settle to avoid establishing negative case law or paying massive damages.
10%
Rare successes, usually hinging on valid consent rather than technical arguments.
Risk Shifts (Pre- vs. Post-Saunders)
- RVM Perception: “Safe Loophole” → “Strict Liability Call”. The ambiguity has largely vanished.
- Consent Need: Implied/None → Written (PEWC). Marketing without written consent is now a non-starter.
- Platform Liability: Senders only → Senders + Platform Providers. Software vendors are increasingly named in suits.
Monitorable Metrics
- Complaint Rate (%): RVM campaigns often see complaint rates >0.5%, triggering carrier blocks.
- Delivery Rate (%): A drop below 80% suggests carrier “spam” flagging of the voicemail injection.
- Litigation Demand Letters (Count): Even one letter regarding RVM implies a systemic vulnerability.
Practical examples of RVM/Soundboard Scenarios
Scenario A: The Compliant Notification
Context: A pharmacy uses RVM to notify patients that prescriptions are ready. The patients provided their numbers at intake.
Defense: The message is informational (not marketing). The pharmacy has “Prior Express Consent” (giving the number). The RVM does not count as a “marketing” robocall.
Outcome: Likely Compliant. Informational messages have a lower consent threshold. As long as they don’t upsell products, RVM is a valid delivery method here.
Scenario B: The “Realtor” Cold Drop
Context: A real estate investor buys a list of homeowners and blasts an RVM: “I want to buy your house for cash.” No prior relationship exists.
Defense: The investor argues “it didn’t ring” and “it’s not telemarketing, it’s an offer to buy.”
Outcome: Violation. Courts reject the “no ring” defense. The message is commercial/marketing. Lacking written consent, it violates the pre-recorded voice ban. $500 per message.
Common mistakes in High-Tech Outreach
Believing the “No Ring” Myth: Assuming that because the phone didn’t ring, the TCPA doesn’t apply. This is the #1 cause of RVM lawsuits.
Disguising Marketing as Info: Sending an RVM saying “Urgent info about your car warranty” to cold leads. Courts see through this pretext immediately.
Ignoring State Mini-TCPAs: Deploying RVM campaigns in Florida or Oklahoma without realizing these states have strict prohibitions regardless of federal consent.
Using Soundboards for Cold Calling: Thinking that a human presence makes the call “live.” The pre-recorded audio clips trigger the robocall statute.
Failing to Identify: Leaving an anonymous voicemail (“Call me back about your property”). The law requires identifying the entity making the call.
FAQ about Ringless Voicemail and Soundboards
Is Ringless Voicemail (RVM) legal in 2024?
RVM technology itself is not illegal, but using it to send marketing messages to mobile phones without Prior Express Written Consent is a violation of the TCPA. Courts have consistently ruled that RVMs are “calls” because they deposit a message on the consumer’s device.
Therefore, RVM is legal only when used compliantly: either for informational purposes to consenting users (like school alerts or appointment reminders) or for marketing to users who have specifically opted in to receive pre-recorded messages.
Does soundboard technology count as a robocall?
Yes. The FCC has issued declaratory rulings stating that calls using pre-recorded or artificial voice messages are subject to TCPA restrictions, even if a live agent selects the messages to be played. The key factor is the nature of the audio (pre-recorded), not the agent’s involvement.
This means you cannot use soundboard technology for outbound telemarketing to consumers who have not given their express written consent to receive pre-recorded calls. It effectively closes the “Avatar” loophole for cold calling.
Can I use RVM for B2B sales?
It is risky. While the TCPA’s restrictions on “residential” lines have B2B exemptions, the ban on using pre-recorded voices to call cell phones applies to “any service for which the called party is charged.” Courts generally hold that business cell phones are protected just like personal ones.
Since RVMs target mobile devices (where voicemail resides on the carrier network), sending unsolicited RVMs to business professionals’ cell phones is a violation unless you have consent. Distinguishing between a business landline and a business cell is technically difficult, increasing the risk.
Do I need to scrub RVM lists against the Do Not Call (DNC) Registry?
Yes. Because courts classify RVMs as “calls,” they constitute “telemarketing calls” when used for commercial purposes. Therefore, you must respect the National DNC Registry. Sending an RVM to a number on the DNC list is a violation.
Additionally, you must maintain your own internal DNC list. If a consumer listens to your voicemail and calls back to say “stop,” you must honor that request and suppress their number from future drops, just as you would for a standard call.
What are the fines for non-compliant RVM or Soundboard calls?
The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 per violation (per call/voicemail). If the court finds the violation was “willful or knowing”—which is often argued when companies use mass-marketing tech without consent—the damages can be tripled to $1,500 per violation.
In a class-action scenario involving thousands of RVM drops, the aggregate liability can easily reach tens of millions of dollars. There is no cap on total damages in TCPA class actions.
If a vendor says their RVM is “FCC Compliant,” am I safe?
No. Under the TCPA, the entity on whose behalf the call is made (you, the seller) is liable for the violation. You cannot contract away your regulatory liability. If your vendor breaks the law, you get sued.
Many vendors use aggressive marketing terms like “100% Legal” based on outdated or fringe legal theories. Always have your own legal counsel review the technology and your consent data before launching a campaign.
Does RVM work on landlines?
Generally, no. Ringless voicemail technology relies on the architecture of cellular networks and server-side voicemail boxes. It typically fails when attempting to deliver to traditional landlines, which usually require a ring to activate the answering machine.
However, many “landlines” today are actually VoIP (Voice over IP) lines which function similarly to digital cellular lines. If the RVM hits a VoIP line, the legal analysis regarding “calls” and “pre-recorded voice” remains the same.
How does Florida’s Mini-TCPA affect RVM?
Florida’s law (CS/SB 1120) is stricter than federal law. It explicitly includes “voicemail transmission” in its definition of regulated communications. It prohibits the use of automated systems to make sales calls (or RVMs) without written consent.
Furthermore, Florida creates a rebuttable presumption that any call made to a Florida area code involves an automated system. This shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, making RVM campaigns in Florida extremely dangerous without robust consent.
Can debt collectors use RVM?
Yes, but with caution. Debt collection is not “telemarketing,” so it does not require written consent; “prior express consent” (volunteering the number) is usually sufficient. However, if the debtor revokes consent, RVMs must stop.
Additionally, the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) requires meaningful disclosure of identity (“This is a communication from a debt collector”). RVMs that try to be vague to get a callback often violate the FDCPA, creating double liability.
What is the “Saunders v. Dyck O’Neal” case?
This is a seminal federal district court case from Michigan (2018) where the judge ruled that a ringless voicemail is a “call” under the TCPA. The court reasoned that the TCPA limits the effect on the consumer (privacy, storage limits), not just the mechanics of the transmission.
This ruling has been cited widely by other courts to reject the “no ring” defense, establishing the precedent that bypassing the ring does not bypass the law.
References and next steps
- Consent Audit: Review your webforms to ensure they specifically authorize “pre-recorded messages” and “artificial voices.”
- Vendor Review: Demand a written legal opinion from your RVM vendor (not a marketing brochure) regarding their compliance strategy.
- Geofencing: Update your suppression lists to block RVM drops in “Mini-TCPA” states like Florida and Oklahoma immediately.
- Script Hygiene: Ensure every soundboard clip and voicemail recording identifies your company and provides a callback number.
Related reading:
- Digital & Privacy Law
- Understanding the difference between ATDS and Pre-recorded Voice liability.
- The impact of Facebook v. Duguid on automated dialing.
- State-level Mini-TCPA laws and their definitions of “autodialer.”
Normative and case-law basis
The primary statute is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227), specifically the prohibition on calls to cell phones using artificial or pre-recorded voices (§ 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) clarified the status of soundboard technology in the Will Yuchun Declaratory Ruling (2016), confirming that the presence of a live agent does not negate the “pre-recorded” nature of the call.
Regarding Ringless Voicemail, the key judicial precedent is Saunders v. Dyck O’Neal, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 3d 907 (W.D. Mich. 2018), which held that RVMs are “calls” under the TCPA. This reasoning has been adopted by numerous other district courts. Additionally, state laws such as Florida’s CS/SB 1120 explicitly regulate voicemail transmissions, creating strict liability independent of federal interpretation.
For detailed case texts and regulatory filings, consult the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) www.fcc.gov/ecfs or legal research databases for the Saunders opinion.
Final considerations
The era of the “TCPA loophole” is effectively over regarding Ringless Voicemail and Soundboard technology. Courts have made it clear: if it looks like a call, acts like a call, and intrudes like a call, it is a call. The technical nuances of server-side injection or human-assisted button pressing are irrelevant to the consumer’s privacy rights and the judge’s interpretation of the statute.
Businesses wishing to use these powerful tools must do so with their eyes open. They are not shortcuts to avoid consent; they are premium delivery methods that require better consent. Using them on cold data is a gamble with odds that heavily favor the plaintiff’s bar. The only sustainable path forward is full transparency, robust written consent, and strict adherence to DNC protocols.
Key point 1: RVMs are “calls” under the TCPA; the “no ring” argument is a failed legal defense.
Key point 2: Soundboards are “pre-recorded voice” calls; having a human agent present does not exempt you from consent rules.
Key point 3: Marketing via these channels requires Prior Express Written Consent; implied consent is insufficient.
- Stop all cold-lead RVM campaigns immediately.
- Update lead forms to include “pre-recorded voice” in the disclosure.
- Train staff to treat RVM replies as potential revocation requests.
This content is for informational purposes only and does not replace individualized legal analysis by a licensed attorney or qualified professional.
Do you have any questions about this topic?
Join our legal community. Post your question and get guidance from other members.
⚖️ ACCESS GLOBAL FORUM