South Carolina Anti-Robocall Statute Ruled Unconstitutional

August 12, 2015

robocallLast week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit struck down a South Carolina anti-robocall statute. The Circuit Court determined that the South Carolina law unconstitutionally regulated free speech in violation of the First Amendment.

What about the South Carolina anti-robocall statute made it unconstitutional?

The statute, enacted in 1991, included restrictions on automated telephone calls that are placed for the purpose of unsolicited telemarketing, or calls that are of a political nature, including calls related to a political campaign. However, the statute did not similarly restrict, for example, calls with ideological but not “political” messages or calls that contained religious messages. A violation of the statute constituted a misdemeanor with penalties ranging from $200-$500 or a maximum prison sentence of 30 days, based on the number of prior convictions.

Following extensive motion practice and a lengthy appeals process, the Court ultimately ruled that the statute violated the First Amendment by being a content-based restriction on speech, applying only to commercial telemarketing and political calls, but not to calls made for other purposes. The Court went on to conclude that the statute was unable to withstand strict scrutiny analysis, which mandates that the government prove that the restriction on speech furthers a compelling interest and that the statute is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The Court found that the statute was not narrowly tailored to serve the asserted government interest of protecting residential privacy and tranquility from unwanted and intrusive robocalls because less restrictive alternatives to outright prohibition on such robocalls were plausible, such as time-of-day restrictions, do-not-call lists, etc.

Protect Yourself Against Robocall-Related Liability Through Smart Practices and Procedures

While this case represents a victory for the telemarketing industry, we have previously written about the increasing vigilance of the FTC and federal and state authorities in pursuing marketers engaged in robocalling campaigns.   Accordingly, prior to embarking on any telemarketing campaign, it is imperative for businesses to have their practices and procedures examined by experienced counsel to ensure compliance with applicable state and federal telemarketing laws.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic or need to review your telemarketing practices and procedures, please email us at, or call us at (212) 246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for information purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.

Attorney Advertising

FCC Issues Robocall Citations to Three Companies

NY Senator Introduces QUIET Act Targeting Robocalls

FTC Wins Robocall Blocking Technology Lawsuit With Contest Rules


David Klein

David Klein is one of the most recognized attorneys in the technology, Internet marketing, sweepstakes, and telecommunications fields. Skilled at counseling clients on a broad range of technology-related matters, David Klein has substantial experience in negotiating and drafting complex licensing, marketing and Internet agreements.

Trending Topics

TCPA vicarious tcpa law woman holding cellphone telemarketing laws

TCPA Vicarious Liability

An Illinois federal district court judge recently held that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) may be vicariously liable for alleged Telephone Consumer

Read More »