CDT opposes the political-call waiver and says its limits would not protect voters
Center for Democracy & TechnologyDigital-rights policy organization submitting its own FCC reply comment
CDT opposed the waiver in a reply filing, arguing that the proposed limits would not protect voters from misleading calls in the election's final days.
“The Center for Democracy & Technology respectfully submits the following reply comment in opposition to the petition for expedited waiver filed by Club for Growth that would allow for calling parties to make noncommercial, political calls to wireless numbers using artificial or prerecorded voice, including AI-generated voice, without prior express consent.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Should political callers be allowed to make prerecorded and AI-voice calls to cellphones without prior consent?
On August 31, 2026, the advocacy group Club for Growth asked the Federal Communications Commission to let callers make noncommercial political calls to cellphones with an artificial or prerecorded voice, including an AI-generated voice, without the recipient's prior consent, subject to call limits and an opt-out. The FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau sought public comment on September 4, with replies due October 19, 15 days before the November 3 midterm elections. In early October, FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, Common Cause and Tim Harper of the Center for Democracy and Technology argued that dropping consent so close to the election would open voters to unwanted or deceptive AI calls. In a statement published by NBC10 on October 8, Club for Growth said the calls are not robocalls and that political speech deserves the treatment the FCC already gives wireless calls about package deliveries and bank accounts. The dispute is over whether the FCC should exempt political prerecorded and AI-voice calls to cellphones from the prior consent requirement.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The filing identifies the waiver, its three-call limit and its ten-day stop-request period. It argues that a caller-specific opt-out would not stop other campaign partners from making calls and that a late-election correction might not reach voters in time.
Before the quotation
The filing identifies the waiver, its three-call limit and its ten-day stop-request period.
After the quotation
It argues that a caller-specific opt-out would not stop other campaign partners from making calls and that a late-election correction might not reach voters in time.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to the proposed exemption, CDT's new filing expressly opposes removing prior consent and argues that the suggested safeguards would not prevent the harm.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseAnna Gomez opposes the political-call waiver on privacy grounds
“I know that they should not do this because we want to preserve consumers' privacy. And this is a privacy issue.”Read statement
Tom Zawistowski backs the political-call waiver as protection for grassroots speech
“We're asking the FCC to stand up for free political speech and for the small, volunteer-driven organizations that keep our democracy working.”Read statement
Joe Kane says the political-call waiver would weaken protections and risk legal challenge
“Because the petition would weaken consumer protections while creating significant constitutional risks, the Commission should deny it.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- CDT opposes the political-call waiver and says its limits would not protect voters
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6312-cdt-opposed-the-waiver-in-a-reply-filing
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "CDT opposes the political-call waiver and says its limits would not protect voters". First published: 2026-10-21. Last updated: 2026-10-21. https://disputeindex.com/events/6312-cdt-opposed-the-waiver-in-a-reply-filing