Table of Contents
If RCS had a relationship status with regulation, it would say “It’s complicated.”
In fact, RCS is frequently misplaced on a company’s regulatory map. Just because RCS is the next version of SMS doesn’t mean the FCC regulates it the same way.
This is admittedly a dissenting, minority opinion. For example, if you ask Google or Perplexity, they’ll summarize statements from Twilio, moEngage, Plivo, and others claiming RCS is regulated like SMS. They’re wrong. They ignore the nuanced reality of RCS’s relationship with the FCC.
Voice and Text Are Different, and Never the Two Shall Meet
In the US, voice and text are treated differently because they are different. Both use public airwaves, making them telecommunication services, but their regulatory statuses diverge sharply. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1934, SMS is an information service (also known as a Title 1 service). Carriers have wide latitude to decide who gets access and at what price. Voice, however, is a telecommunications service (also known as a Title 2 service). That means carriers must carry all voice traffic without blocking, throttling, or prioritizing one call over another for commercial reasons.
SMS and voice are different, except when they’re not. This is where the FCC’s authority becomes clear. Beyond enforcing the Telecommunications Act, the FCC also interprets and enforces the TCPA. Under the TCPA, a text and a call are treated exactly the same. The burden of intent, content, and consent is identical, whether the “call” is voice or text.
But What About RCS, iMessage, and WhatsApp?
As communication shifted from radio signals to data channels, the FCC sought clarity on how to treat messaging services like iMessage, WhatsApp, and RCS. Companies like Twilio and EZ Texting argued these channels shouldn’t be regulated as SMS.
The FCC defines SMS as a service delivered over wireless networks. In contrast, RCS and other OTT services are IP-based services. Crucially, the FCC explicitly states that just because RCS is considered a “successor protocol” to SMS/MMS, that doesn’t make it SMS/MMS. The FCC’s RAY BAUM order emphasizes Congress’s deliberate exclusion of RCS from the SMS/MMS definition (emphasis mine):
Congress chose to exempt from the definition of “text message” any message sent over an IP-enabled messaging service that is not SMS or MMS, which would include RCS and any other potential successor protocols.
Regardless of whether RCS may bear functional similarity to MMS and SMS, the Commission cannot disturb the policy judgment made by Congress
….
We therefore agree with Twilio and EZ Texting who argue that RCS should be excluded from the definition of “text message.”
The FCC reconfirmed this in 2023. Therefore, RCS is not SMS. While it may be a successor protocol—and even carrier offered—it hasn’t inherited its older sibling’s regulatory burdens.
So What?
This isn’t a meaningless distinction. The fact that RCS isn’t SMS makes it immune from TCPA liability.
For a TCPA violation—sending a text without explicit consent, at an inconvenient hour, or using outdated autodialer definitions—none of it applies to RCS. Because, legally, RCS isn’t a text message.
Does that mean we should celebrate by savoring foie gras without considering its dubious supply chain? Or devour double-chocolate cake without worrying about clogged arteries? Of course not.
The FCC’s ruling simply ensures RCS enjoys the same light-touch regulatory status as iMessage or WhatsApp, giving significant leeway to platform owners (Apple, Meta, and now carriers) in how they implement, enforce, and monetize these services. What matters most is the clear legal moat protecting RCS from regulatory overreach. The barrier to frivolous, TCPA-based litigation is high.
Still Not Convinced? Let’s Invert the Argument
Having established that RCS is not SMS, what could make the FCC reconsider? There are two possibilities.
First, Congress could rewrite the law, though desktop quantum computing within the decade seems likelier. Second, widespread industry complaints about accessibility or significant consumer outrage over spam might emerge. Neither scenario is likely anytime soon.
Another possibility is a TCPA lawsuit. With Chevron deference weakened, courts might choose independent analysis instead of relying on the FCC. But for a federal court to independently decide if RCS should be treated as SMS would require an intensive, FCC-style process, complete with expert commentary and extensive evidence.
This also seems improbable anytime soon. For starters, the message volumes aren’t there. More importantly, have you seen the RCS brand registration requirements? They’re extraordinarily intense, far beyond what’s required for standard SMS. The rigorous vetting, re-vetting, and compliance measures make it unlikely that any campaign could slip through, trigger a compelling TCPA lawsuit, and prompt court intervention.
That’s a heavy lift, no matter how much of a believer you are in your client’s case.
Finally
The relationship of RCS with regulation isn’t complicated; it’s nuanced. Understanding the nuances makes dealing with it simple.
RCS is immune from TCPA liability because it’s not SMS. While this clarity alleviates regulatory pressures, it doesn’t reduce the operational burdens associated with compliance-based messaging. Mike Hazzard, who advised EZ Texting during the RAY BAUM process, says it best:
“Twilio and EZ created an RCS firewall by securing this ruling years ago. If the ecosystem can minimize RCS spam, the FCC will have no reason to extend TCPA or Do Not Call provisions to RCS. And I doubt courts will take much interest either way. That said, the industry should expect—and welcome—carrier vigilance.”
Correction: The version published on June 22, incorrectly called Title II as Broadcast service. Title II is a Telecommunications service. The definition however remains unchanged.