FCC proposes sweeping rules to promote onshoring call centers — action required

The Bottom Line

In a sweeping regulatory move with immediate implications for companies that rely on offshore customer service operations, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has approved issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in CG Docket No. 26‑52 that if finalized as proposed would significantly restrict foreign call centers and impose new disclosure, data‑handling, and reporting obligations. The FCC’s stated objectives are to drive call center jobs back to the United States, enhance consumer privacy and national security, and deter foreign‑originated robocall scams. FCC Chair Brendan Carr explained that what is driving the FCC’s Build America Agenda includes an observation that “nearly 70 percent of US businesses outsource at least one department, including customer service and call center operations, to locations abroad. As a result, too many Americans have struggled to resolve an issue with a representative due to cultural and language barriers.”¹

The NPRM was approved by unanimous vote at the FCC’s March 26, 2026 Open Meeting, constituting official commission action. The Chair has determined that the public interest is served by bringing offshore call center jobs back onshore and by reining in offshoring and related potential robocalling from foreign call centers that facilitate illegal robocalling and data misuse.

The rules would apply to providers of telecommunications service, Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), interconnected VoIP service, cable television service, and Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), as well as their affiliates and vendors. If adopted, they would impose significant operational, contractual, and compliance obligations on any covered entity that uses offshore call centers — whether directly or through third-party contractors. However, the NPRM expressly seeks comment on whether its scope should be expanded to align with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), potentially extending these obligations well beyond traditional communications service providers. As a result, the universe of affected entities is not yet settled and remains open to public comment.

Why the FCC Is Acting — Three Core Problems

According to the FCC, issues with offshore call centers include (1) consumer frustration and language barriers; (2) heightened privacy, data protection, and national security risks; and (3) the use of foreign call centers as hubs for illegal robocall and fraud operations. Congress is also pursuing legislation to attempt to address these same perceived issues, and companies that use call centers to handle large amounts of US personal data may already be subject to the Department of Justice’s Data Security Program.

More specifically, the NPRM focuses on these FCC observations:

1. Customer Service Quality. Per the FCC, foreign call center staff may lack proficiency in American Standard English or use regional pronunciations that make interactions difficult. Cultural differences can further impede effective communication, including misalignment in tone and misunderstandings of American idioms, resulting in consumer frustration and unresolved service issues. 
2. Data Privacy and National Security. Foreign call centers have failed to protect consumers’ sensitive personal information. The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a consent decree with a provider after finding that call center personnel in three foreign countries accessed customer information needed to unlock stolen mobile phones and then sold that information.² The FCC also expresses concern that foreign jurisdictions may provide fewer legal protections for consumer data and, in some cases, may require companies to disclose customer information to foreign governments.
3. Foreign Scam Operations. Foreign-originated scam calls cost Americans nearly $30 billion during 2021, with almost $700 million documented in Federal Trade Commission complaints. By 2024, older Americans alone lost $700 million to scams where the scammer impersonated a government agency or known business. The FCC notes that some foreign scammers have trained in legitimate call centers, leveraging insider knowledge of customer service practices to make their schemes more convincing. 

What the FCC Is Proposing — Three Pillars

Pillar 1: Mandatory Onshoring and Customer Service Requirements

Covered providers and their affiliates would be required to: 

• Ensure that call center staff are proficient in American Standard English;
• Limit the percentage of customer service calls handled at offshore call centers;
• Inform customers at the beginning of each call when it is being handled outside the United States;
• Transfer calls to a US-based call center upon consumer request;
• Track and report compliance with the adopted rules; and
• Handle consumer transactions involving sensitive customer data only at call centers located within the United States.

Key specifics:

• Offshore cap: The FCC proposes to cap the percentage of calls that may be handled offshore, seeking comment on whether 30% would be appropriate and on whether compliance should be measured annually, quarterly, monthly, or daily. 
• Mandatory disclosure: Providers would be required to inform customers at the beginning of each call that it is being handled outside the United States, enabling consumers to take privacy precautions, decline to share sensitive information, or request transfer to a US-based representative. 
• Right to transfer: Providers would be expected to, upon consumer request, transfer calls to a call center located within the United States — for both inbound and outbound calls — and would have to ensure that wait times for transferred calls are no longer than those for calls initially routed domestically.
• Sensitive data — US-only: Providers would have to handle certain consumer transactions exclusively at US-based call centers, regardless of the communications channel used. This would include transactions involving high‑risk information such as passwords, multi‑factor authentication credentials, and bank account or credit card numbers.
• Compliance reporting: Providers would be required to track and report to the commission their compliance, including data on English proficiency of foreign call center staff; the percentage of calls routed to foreign and US call centers; the percentage of calls transferred to a US center upon request; associated wait times; and dropped calls. 

Pillar 2: Financial Deterrents for Foreign Scam Calls

The FCC also seeks comment on whether tariffs or bond requirements could be used to make illegal foreign‑originated calls economically prohibitive. In this context, “tariff” refers to duties imposed on calls entering the United States — analogous to duties on imported goods — rather than a rate schedule under Section 203 of the Communications Act.

Under a bond-based approach, the FCC seeks comment on whether to require providers to post a bond to file in the Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD), or to require providers that are subject to one or more traceback requests, or whose filings were removed from the RMD in an enforcement action, to post a bond. 

Pillar 3: Potential Expansion of Scope

The FCC also seeks comment on whether the proposed rules should apply to non-voice communications such as online chat, texts, and email handled by offshore customer service centers and to providers of Internet-only services, and whether some or all of the proposed rules should apply to all calls covered by the TCPA, whether or not placed by communications service providers. 

Contractor Liability — A Critical Point for Covered Entities

Covered entities using third‑party offshore call center operators would not be able to contract around liability or compliance obligations. Under Section 217 of the Communications Act, acts and omissions of any officer, agent, or other person acting within the scope of employment for a common carrier are deemed to be the acts of the carrier itself. This agency principle applies even when contractor conduct violates the carrier’s internal policies.

Key Open Questions for the Comment Record

The FCC is seeking public comment on several issues that will directly shape the final rules:

• What offshore call volume cap is appropriate (e.g., 30%, 50%, 75%), and over what compliance period? 
• Should the rules extend to non-voice channels — online chat, text, and email? 
• Should the rules extend to any communication that is subject to the TCPA?
• Should providers be prohibited from using call centers in “foreign adversary” nations entirely? 
• How should tariff or bond requirements be structured to deter foreign scam calls? 

Comment Deadlines

The comment deadline is 30 days after publication in the Federal Register; the reply comment deadline is 60 days after publication. Federal Register publication is expected to follow shortly after the March 26, 2026 open meeting.

Immediate Action Items to Consider for Potentially Covered Entities and Their Service Providers as the Future of the Proposed Rulemaking Comes into Focus 

1. Mapping your offshore call center footprint now. Quantify offshore call volume, identify third party dependencies, and model operational impact under multiple offshore cap scenarios.
2. Reviewing third party call center contracts. Given the Section 217 agency liability principle, if finalized, the Build America concepts in the NPRM could hold businesses responsible for their offshore contractors’ noncompliance with any rules ultimately adopted.
3. Evaluating sensitive data flows immediately. The proposed requirement to handle all sensitive transactions — including password resets, multi-factor authentication, and financial account information — exclusively at US-based call centers would require significant operational restructuring for many providers. 
4. Participating in the comment process. Companies with offshore call center operations have a strong interest in shaping key parameters, including caps, measurement periods, and transition timelines.
5. Monitoring parallel legislative activity. Congress is moving in parallel, including the bipartisan Keep Call Centers in America Act of 2025³ and the House version of the Foreign Robocall Elimination Act,⁴ which would impose overlapping disclosure and bonding requirements.

Related articles

UPDATE: Navigating new compliance requirements for DOJ’s Bulk Data Rule

DOJ cracks down on data transfers

__________

If you have any questions about this Legal Briefing, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed or the Eversheds Sutherland attorney with whom you regularly work.

_{1 See https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2026/03/04/consumer-protection.
2 See https://www.fcc.gov/document/att-pay-25m-settle-investigation-three-data-breaches-0. Earlier this year the FCC took a first-ever enforcement action against the company Marlink, Inc., for violating terms of its international Section 214 and earth station authorizations by failing to comply with “Team Telecom” agreement terms, including strict controls on foreign-employee access to US communication infrastructure and customer information. See https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-settles-landmark-case-involving-team-telecom-commitments/consent-decree.
3 See https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2495/text.
4 See https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6152?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22foreign+robocall+elimination+act%22%7D&s=1&r=4.}