FCC Proposes to Limit Offshore Customer Service Via Restrictions on International Call Centers

On March 26, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on a comprehensive set of proposed rules restricting service providers that use offshore customer service call centers.

The NPRM makes three core proposals. First, the FCC seeks to impose new regulatory duties on covered providers in order to "encourage" providers to "onshore" customer service and expand the use of domestic call centers by relocating international call centers to the U.S. Second, the FCC seeks to improve customer service and security of communications by mandating certain standards, such as imposing English proficiency standards on call center workers. Third, the FCC seeks comment on whether new rules can also be used to limit illegal robocall scams originating from inside international call centers.

The FCC expansively interprets its jurisdiction to justify imposing these proposed rules on providers of telecommunications service, commercial mobile radio service (CMRS), interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), cable television and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service, and affiliates of these service providers offering internet access services. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to extend these proposed rules to: (i) providers of non-interconnected VoIP; (ii) internet, text, and chat service providers; and (iii) foreign-originated calls and text messages that are subject to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). If adopted, these new rules will create significant new operational and compliance challenges for covered providers and their vendors.

Key Takeaways

• The proposed rules regulating call center operations of communications providers, and possibly internet, text, and chat providers and TCPA-covered businesses, will impose costly and complex compliance obligations.
• The Commission seeks comment on an expansive reading of its jurisdiction over entities that have long been free from most FCC regulations, and which could (if the proposed rules are adopted) lead to significant and lengthy legal challenges.
• Covered providers will face a range of new duties, including mandating English proficiency for call center workers, managing traffic to ensure compliance with offshore volume caps, rerouting certain calls involving sensitive consumer transactions, and posting bonds to cover potential noncompliance events.
• The Commission seeks comment on the scope of "covered calls," including whether certain categories of calls should be excluded, such as sales or marketing calls, and how providers could distinguish between covered and noncovered calls.
• New regulatory duties would likely have a significant impact on how providers locate and staff call centers, and in turn require changes to downstream contractual terms between covered providers and their call center vendors.

Core Elements of the FCC's Proposed Call Center Rules

Mandating English Language Proficiency Standards: The proposed rules would require offshore call center staff to be proficient in written and spoken English, including establishment of a baseline of proficiency through testing. The FCC seeks comment on what testing criteria might be appropriate and whether customer call centers already test English proficiency.

Limits on Offshore Call Volume: The FCC proposes a cap on the percentage of inbound and outbound customer-service calls handled by offshore call centers, with comment sought on a potential 30% limit. The Commission further seeks comment on the appropriate transition period that providers would need to bring their operations into compliance.

Consumer Rights and Required Disclosures: The proposed rules would require customer service agents to inform customers at the beginning of each call that it is being handled outside of the U.S. The rules would also require providers to both advise customers of their right to speak with a U.S.-based agent and to transfer the call to such persons upon request.

Restrictions on Certain Sensitive Consumer Transactions: The proposed rules would require that certain calls and consumer transactions—such as password changes or credit card-related actions—be handled exclusively by U.S.-based call centers to prevent unauthorized foreign access to sensitive information.

Prohibition on Foreign Adversary Nations: The FCC proposes to prohibit providers from using call centers in "foreign adversary nations."[1]

Enhancing Transparency by Expanding Broadband Label Disclosure Requirements: The FCC proposes to amend the broadband label rule to require covered providers to include the percentage of customer service calls handled by representatives located within the U.S. The FCC seeks comment on the appropriate time period for calculation, the level of precision, cadence of updates, and whether providers of nonbroadband services covered by the proposed rules should make available the same information regarding the percentage of customer service calls handled in international call centers.

Fee-Based or Bond-Based Approach: The FCC proposes to use a fee or bond-based approach in an effort to make illegal calls expensive enough to deter. The Commission seeks comment on how any fee or bond requirement might be structured, what traffic it would apply to, and how it would be collected.

Tracking and Compliance Metrics: The FCC proposes tracking and reporting on compliance metrics—including English-language proficiency, the volume of calls handled abroad versus domestically, call-transfer rates, wait times, and dropped-call counts—and seeks comment on the reporting frequency and submission process. The FCC also seeks comment on which types of calls should fall within the scope of the proposed rules, including whether to count only calls from existing customers related to service, billing, or account management, and whether to count calls related to debt collection, win-back campaigns, or other retention efforts.

Policy Objectives Underlying the Commission's Proposed Rules

The FCC bases the NPRM on several policy objectives, including promoting U.S. domestic employment, enhancing consumer protection, mitigating national security risks, improving service quality, and combatting illegal robocalls and scams. The NPRM aligns with the FCC's "Build America Agenda" and its consumer-protection initiatives, which aim to strengthen national security, support the U.S. workforce, and tackle illegal robocalls.

The FCC cites several sources of statutory authority for the proposed rules, including Communications Act Sections 201(b) (prohibiting unjust and unreasonable practices), 222 (protecting customer proprietary network information, or CPNI), and 227 (TCPA limitations on use of networks for marketing). While the FCC would not have jurisdiction over offshore call center operators, the FCC seeks comment on whether it could exercise jurisdiction over offshore call centers for certain practices that are within the scope of the TCPA. In any event, the proposed rules would have significant downstream effects on all call center entities, including the need to implement specialized workflows that are capable of rerouting calls to the U.S. for its clients subject to FCC jurisdiction.

The FCC also seeks comment on the extent of its authority under the TCPA, as well as Communications Act Sections 222 (CPNI) and 201 (requiring just and reasonable rates and terms for telecommunications carriers) to impose new requirements on providers that use international call centers and whether these statutes could support Commission rules to impose English proficiency standards on offshore call centers and limit the types of calls (or caps on volumes) international call centers could handle. The FCC also asks whether Section 227(d) of the TCPA, which directs the Commission to prescribe technical and procedural standards for transmitting prerecorded messages, would support a rule that requires disclosure at the beginning of a call that the call originated from outside of the U.S. Finally, the FCC asks whether it has the authority to prevent international call centers from "misusing customers' personally identifiable information (PII) when handling customer service calls relating to internet access service." A recent decision, currently held in abeyance, limited the Commission's authority with respect to rules adopted under Section 222.

Uncertainty Regarding the Scope of Covered Entities

As currently framed, the proposed rules would apply to providers of telecommunications services, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, cable television, DBS, and affiliates of such entities offering internet access services. However, the Commission goes further and asks whether the proposed rules should apply more broadly to providers of internet access and non-interconnected VoIP, even when those providers are not affiliates of otherwise regulated entities.

Moreover, the NPRM seeks comment on whether to extend the rules to nonvoice communications, such as email, text messaging, and online chat services—all services that are generally not regulated by the Commission. Adoption of rules regulating such providers would reflect a significant expansion of the Commission's authority under existing law, and almost certainly invite legal challenges.

The Commission also seeks comment on whether it could hold a "seller" vicariously liable under federal common law principles of agency for violations of the Commission's TCPA rules—including Sections 227(c) (telephone solicitations) and 227(d) (artificial or prerecorded calls) and the proposed offshore call center rules committed by third-party telemarketers. If adopted, this approach would represent an extraordinary attempt to extend the Commission's jurisdiction and authority over entities that are not offering communications services. The NPRM further seeks comment on whether the proposed rules should extend to all calls originating outside of the U.S. and within scope of the TCPA, such as telephone solicitations and artificial or prerecorded calls.

Potential Impact on Call Center Operations and Compliance Considerations

This NPRM raises significant questions about the scope of the FCC's authority over entities that have long been free from the FCC's regulations, including internet access providers and other providers of information services. Any attempt to extend these proposed rules to internet, text, or chat providers—and noncommunications service providers—would likely be challenged in the courts.

Further, even where the Commission clearly has some authority to act, the question remains as to whether this proposal (or portions thereof) exceeds the statutory authority granted to the FCC. Indeed, in a post-Chevron world where the courts are no longer required to defer to agency interpretations of statutory authority, some aspects of the FCC's proposals could be at risk, including those that rely on expansively interpreting Section 222 or the TCPA.

If the proposed rules are ultimately adopted, companies could experience significant administrative and compliance burdens, particularly with respect to the proposed call tracking and reporting, language proficiency testing, enhanced broadband label disclosures, and bond-based (or penalty fee) requirements. Providers currently relying on international call centers may be pressured to shift to U.S.-based call centers or face greater scrutiny and penalties.

The proposed rules would also be operationally complex. Restrictions on certain sensitive consumer transactions, mandatory transfer of calls to the U.S. upon request, and limits on call volume handled internationally may require enhanced system tracking and a higher level of vendor oversight to ensure compliance.

Interested parties should use this opportunity to address the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction for the proposed rules, why the proposed rules may or may not align with today's customer service operations, and if the proposed rules will achieve the objectives laid out by the Commission. Please let us know if you have any questions about the proposed rules or comment process.

Comments and reply comments on the NPRM's proposals will be due 30 and 60 days, respectively, after the date of publication in the Federal Register, which has not yet occurred.

+++

Victoria Randazzo is an associate, K.C. Halm is a partner, and John Nelson is counsel in the communications group in the Washington, D.C. office of DWT. For questions or more insights, reach out to the authors or another member of our communications team and sign up for our alerts.