FCC considers loosening rules on political robocalls with AI voices before midterms

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is contemplating easing restrictions on political robocalls, potentially allowing the use of artificial intelligence-generated voices for unsolicited wireless calls before the November midterm elections. Currently, federal law prohibits most robocalls to cellphones unless the caller obtains consent first. The proposal, submitted by a conservative group, seeks a waiver that would permit political organizations to utilize artificial or pre-recorded voices in unsolicited calls.

The request is intended to be reviewed by the Republican-led FCC, which could rule on it as early as late October. Consumer advocacy groups are concerned that this change could lead to an influx of unwanted, partisan, and potentially misleading automated calls during the critical final days of the election, which will determine which party controls Congress for the remainder of President Donald Trump's term.

Such a waiver could weaken a significant deterrent against deceptive practices, according to Tim Harper, who heads the elections team at the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology. He warned that the decision, made close to Election Day, could present "a huge opportunity for abuse during a period where harm has outsized impact."

The Club for Growth, a right-leaning economic policy group advocating for the change, claims that the waiver could enable political organizations to communicate more effectively with potential voters, including in multiple languages, and improve polling accuracy by reaching more voters. They argue that current regulations are outdated and diminish freedom of speech.

However, critics argue that this move is not the first instance of the FCC bypassing procedural norms to align with the president's agenda. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr launched an unusual early review of broadcast licenses for several ABC-owned local stations, which the company subsequently sued, claiming the review was unconstitutional and a retaliation for content it disagreed with.