Approve a defined calling workflow—not a supplier’s general claim of “AI compliance”. Our recommendation is to separate inbound reception, outbound callbacks, marketing, recording, payment collection and consequential decision-making into distinct approval tracks. The relevant authorities regulate different activities: the FCC addresses artificial-voice calling, state laws add disclosure and telemarketing requirements, and healthcare and payment rules impose separate data obligations. (docs.fcc.gov)
Three developments deserve immediate attention:
- Pennsylvania’s telemarketing amendments are now operative. The enacted text prohibits covered telephone solicitations on Sundays and before 9am or after 7pm. Check scheduling rules rather than relying on a nationwide default. (legis.state.pa.us)
- Colorado’s original AI Act checklist is no longer the right implementation blueprint. Legislation signed on 14 May 2026 replaced its framework with an automated decision-making regime; the Attorney General identifies 1 January 2027 as the new operational date. (leg.colorado.gov)
- Do not switch off existing opt-out controls because of the FCC’s September 2026 changes. Adoption has been reported, but this review could not retrieve the final order or independently establish its commencement date. The accessible current regulation still contains the reasonable-means revocation requirement. (infobytes.orrick.com)
Desk recommendation: start with bounded inbound booking or overflow, keep outbound campaigns disabled until separately approved, and require demonstrated suppression, disclosure, data handling and human fallback before expanding the pilot.
How should this report be used?
This is procurement and deployment research, not a legal opinion or a complete 50-state survey. “In force”, “upcoming”, “proposed” and “verification outstanding” are deliberately different statuses. Recommendations below are desk-designed controls, not claims that legislation prescribes a particular software architecture.
Primary legislation, regulator material and standards-body publications underpin the substantive sections. Where access to a final primary document was unsuccessful—most importantly FCC 26-67—the limitation is explicit. Industry articles, webinars, podcasts and job listings were used for discovery, not as substitutes for operative legal text.