Texts to Students: New Developments and Open Questions Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Danger on screen in 3D

FCC recently provided additional guidance about when text messages and automated calls initiated by colleges and universities are exempt from liability under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Below is a brief background of relevant portions of the TCPA, a summary of new guidance from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and a few open issues to consider.


The TCPA was passed in 1991 to curb the rampant and harassing telemarketing practices of the time, and established relatively high-dollar civil liability – $500 to $1500 per violation – as its enforcement mechanism. In relevant part, the TCPA makes it unlawful to use “an automatic telephone dialing system” to call (or text) any number assigned to a cellular telephone service, and allows the call/text recipient to sue the caller. There are two key statutory exceptions to liability under this section of the TCPA:

  • where the recipient of the call provided his or her prior express consent to be called, or
  • where the call was placed for an “emergency purpose,” defined as “any situation affecting the health and safety of consumers,”

47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(4).

The Blackboard Petition

Blackboard, Inc. provides, among other services, a platform for schools to send mass text messages to students. According to Blackboard, the purposes for such messages include “emergency weather closures, threat situations, event scheduling, or to provide other important education-related information.” Blackboard asked the FCC to rule that the messages that it and its educational organization clients send are exempt from liability under both of the above-listed exceptions to TCPA liability.

The FCC responded with important TCPA clarifications for education communities. (Note that the FCC ruling uses the terms “school” and “educational organization” interchangeably and without definition; in light of common usage outside of the education community and the identity of commenters to Blackboard’s petition, which include higher education organizations, the FCC’s ruling appears to extend to higher education as well as to K-12 settings.)

FCC ruling on emergency purpose. Blackboard’s petition requested a broad ruling on the meaning of “emergency purpose” as applied to educational institutions – that “all automated informational messages sent by an educational organization via a recipient’s requested method of notification are calls made for an ‘emergency purpose’ and thus outside the requirements of the [TCPA].”

The FCC met Blackboard halfway, ruling that emergency purpose exception covers such calls or texts sent by or on behalf of schools if the message concerns “the health and safety of students and faculty.” The FCC listed several examples that should be considered emergencies, such as:

  • weather closures,
  • fire,
  • health risks,
  • threats, and
  • alerting parents to unexcused absences.

But the FCC did not rule, as Blackboard requested, that all informational messages sent by an institution are considered emergencies, remarking that “the mere fact that an informational message comes from a school caller does not make it an emergency.” For other types of informational messages, the institution must have prior express consent from the recipient, as addressed below.

FCC ruling on prior express consent. Blackboard also asked the FCC to declare that informational messages sent to a wireless telephone number constitute calls made with “prior express consent” when “the wireless telephone number has been provided to the caller as a means of providing information” to the recipient, “even if the wireless telephone number later is in use by another consumer.” Again, the FCC met Blackboard halfway.

The FCC essentially determined that if a student or parent provides his cell phone number as his/her only point of contact, he/she has provided consent to be contacted with institution-related messages.

What types of messages are considered “closely related to the educational mission” or official institutional activities? While there is no definitive list, the FCC did provide the following examples as guidance:

  • calls relating to parent-teacher conferences,
  • surveys that provide input on institution-related issues, and
  • notifications about general institutional activities.

Schools must be prepared, however, to honor revocation requests from students or parents who no longer wish to receive such non-emergency calls and texts.

Open Issues

  • Exactly what types of calls are not “closely related to … educational mission”? Although the FCC provided some examples of permissible and potentially impermissible calls, there will almost certainly be questions about whether other types of calls should fall within the scope of consent given when a student/parent provides a cell phone number as the point of contact. In an attempt to limit confusion, the FCC therefore encouraged institutions “to disclose the full range of all potential calls and messages that a student/parent should expect to receive when requesting consent.”
  • Which entities can be held liable? The FCC specifically reserved the question of whether “Blackboard or its client schools are the party that ‘make’ or ‘initiate’ the automated calls under the TCPA,” leaving for another day whether an institution utilizing a third-party texting service such as Blackboard could be held liable for sending, for example, non-emergency text messages to a person who has not given consent or to a re-assigned phone number accidently.

What this means for you

The FCC ruling clarifies the definition and scope of emergency messages and calls that colleges and universities can make to cellular phones without express consent under the TCPA  Given remaining ambiguities, the safest approach is nevertheless to consider obtaining express written consent to contact students and parents via cellular numbers—such as through contact information forms including check boxes confirming that individuals agree to contact via cellular phone, and clearly defining the scope of messages that will be sent.

For more information on the TCPA as it applies to colleges and universities, see generally Don’t get blindsided by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

At the intersection of Title IX/VAWA, FERPA, and public records requests

How should public colleges and universities respond to requests under public records laws for information related to sexual misconduct investigations under Title IX and VAWA? On one hand, institutions are called to share information by public records laws, a desire for transparency, a need to discourage misconduct, and the public’s right to information. On the other hand, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Title IX, VAWA, and the Department of Education’s guidance call for protecting sexual misconduct records in the important interests of protecting safety, privacy, fairness, and encouraging reporting.

All states have some form of public records laws, which generally operate like the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), whereby public governmental entities – including public colleges and universities – must provide information in response to a proper request. Most public records laws have exemptions for certain categories of information, including exceptions for information that is prohibited from disclosure by another law—such as FERPA—or that would result in an invasion of personal privacy. Relying on these exemptions, public colleges and universities may assert that they are not required to provide information related to sexual misconduct investigations. However, not all states extend these exceptions. Recent litigation and legislation indicate that even private institution police records may be subject to public records disclosure requirements. Continue Reading

6 Pillars for Cops, Communities and Campuses

Today’s Dear Colleague Letter from the U.S. Department of Education urges colleges and universities to seriously consider “community and police relations, racial justice, and officer and public safety.”

In the letter, U.S. Secretary of Education John B. King, Jr. incorporates into Department guidance the Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, asking institutions of higher education adopt recommendations that apply to their campuses. Continue Reading

Deferred Compensation Opportunities for Highly Paid Employees of State Universities and Other Governmental Employers

The ability to defer compensation can be a critical component of the financial planning of highly paid individuals. State universities and other governmental employers generally do not have the same tools to enable highly paid employees to defer compensation as are available to executives in the for-profit world. However, special rules for governmental employers allow surprising flexibility. Continue Reading

Supreme Court’s involvement in transgender-restroom issue could bring sweeping changes to many Department of Education regulatory matters

On August 29, 2016, the Gloucester County School Board filed its petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, seeking reversal of a lower court decision requiring the school district to allow students to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity even if that identity is different from their anatomical sex at birth. The petitioners, however, frame the issue in much broader terms, attacking the manner in which the Department of Education (“ED”) announced the rules at issue.  If the Supreme Court elects to decide this case, and also chooses to confront these broader issues relating to ED’s guidance practices, it could have far-reaching consequences for many recent enforcement priorities for ED. Continue Reading

In Case You Missed It: ED Issues Q&A on Title IV Third-Party Servicers

On August 18, 2016, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) released a question and answer sheet for the most commonly asked questions received regarding third party servicers following the Department’s January 9, 2015 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN 15-01). The questions and answers range from the most basic, such as “What is a third-party servicer?” to more complex questions such as “Does an institution need to require a third-party servicer to sign a Certification By Lower Tier Contractor form?” The Q&A also contains helpful side-by-side charts to distinguish between the functions and services provided by third-party servicers versus non-third-party servicers. Notably, the guidance devotes several questions and answers to the use and disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) from education records, and the importance of adherence to Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act’s (FERPA) recordkeeping requirements. If you have not had a chance to look it over and your institution uses third-party servicers for administration of Title IV funds, click here to be sure you are on the right track.

NLRB rules that graduate assistants at private colleges and universities may unionize

college entrance with ivy_000007792866_LargeOn August 23, 2016, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) ruled in a 3-1 decision that graduate students working as teaching and research assistants at private colleges and universities may engage in collective bargaining. In doing so, the NLRB expressly overruled its prior decision in Brown University, which held that graduate assistants did not enjoy this right. Graduate assistants at private institutions may now unionize and bargain on topics such as benefits and working conditions. Continue Reading

Federal Court Enters Preliminary Injunction Blocking Federal Agencies From Enforcing Gender-Identity Guidelines

school suppliesOn August 21, 2016, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a preliminary injunction barring federal agencies from enforcing recent guidelines that call for schools, colleges, and universities to allow students to use sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity. The injunction applies nationwide and specifically prohibits the Department of Education (ED) from initiating, continuing, or concluding any Title IX investigation that is based upon an institution’s alleged violation of ED’s gender-identity guidelines. The decision rejects the agencies’ position that Title IX and Title VII’s prohibition on “sex” discrimination includes a ban on gender-identity discrimination. The decision also declares that the agencies likely violated the federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by issuing gender-identity guidance without engaging in a public notice and comment process. Continue Reading

It’s Election Season: Don’t Let Your 501(c)(3) Status Hang like a Chad

Election Day American with USA flag

During election season, colleges and universities with tax-exempt status as 501(c)(3) organizations often struggle with determining compliance with the federal tax law. While the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has not recently released regulations or fact sheets in anticipation of the upcoming election, this is still a good time to reassess your school’s policies and practices regarding election activity at the federal, state, and even local levels. Continue Reading

Department of Education seeks to finalize distance education regulations

collegeIn the wake of three negotiated rulemaking sessions that failed to reach consensus on issues surrounding the regulation of distance education, the Department of Education has published an updated set of proposed rules on the issue, with a public comment period extending through August 24, 2016.

In the proposed regulations, the Department is seeking to clarify the requirements for distance education providers, including additional campuses or branches in foreign locations. The Department’s stated goal in attempting to refine and clarify these distance education requirements is to protect students and assist them in making informed decisions. Continue Reading