- Case
- McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Citation
- 606 U.S. 146 (2025) (No. 23-1226)
- Decided
- June 20, 2025
- Bottom line
- This is a TCPA case, but it confirms that courts, not agencies, have the final word on what consumer protection statutes mean, which cuts both ways for consumers.
Background
This case arose under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, not the FCRA. McLaughlin Chiropractic brought a class action alleging that McKesson sent unsolicited fax advertisements in 2009 and 2010. While the case was pending, the Federal Communications Commission issued its Amerifactors order, interpreting “telephone facsimile machine” to exclude online fax services. Following Ninth Circuit precedent, the district court treated that order as binding, granted summary judgment on the online-fax claims, and decertified the class; the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Both courts relied on the Hobbs Act, which gives the courts of appeals “exclusive jurisdiction” to “determine the validity” of certain agency orders.
The question for the Supreme Court was whether a district court, in a private enforcement suit, must accept the agency’s interpretation of the statute.
What the court held
The Court ruled 6-3. As the official syllabus summarizes the holding, “the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency’s interpretation of a statute.” Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett.
The Court explained that, unless a statute expressly precludes it, district courts in enforcement proceedings must independently determine whether an agency’s interpretation is correct. It read the Hobbs Act’s “determine the validity” language to refer to declaratory judgments in pre-enforcement review, not to the reasoning a court uses when deciding liability. Instead, district courts determine the law’s meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording “appropriate respect” to the agency’s interpretation. The Court reversed and remanded. On remand, the district court will decide for itself whether faxes received through online fax services are covered, rather than treating the FCC’s Amerifactors order as binding.
Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.
Our take
We include this TCPA decision because it continues a line of cases, following Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), that places statutory interpretation squarely with the courts. For FCRA and FDCPA litigants, the relevance is indirect but real. The FCRA does not route challenges through the Hobbs Act, so McLaughlin does not change the procedural rules in FCRA cases. What it reinforces is the principle that agency interpretations of consumer statutes receive “respect,” not binding deference.
That principle cuts both ways. In 2025 the CFPB withdrew many consumer-protective FCRA advisory opinions and issued a new interpretive rule asserting broad FCRA preemption of state law. Under the approach the Supreme Court applied here, courts should give neither the old guidance nor the new rule controlling weight; they should read the statute. In our view, that means consumers can continue to make the arguments the withdrawn guidance made, on the strength of the statutory text, and should not concede that a new agency position settles any question. The same is true for industry.
There is a cost. Agency guidance once offered predictability, and some courts relied on it when deciding what the FCRA requires. Without deference, expect more variation among district courts and more circuit splits, at least until appellate courts settle contested questions.
What it means if your report is wrong
For most consumers, McLaughlin changes little day to day. Your rights come from the statute itself: the right to dispute errors, to have them reasonably investigated, and to sue for willful or negligent violations. When a company points to agency guidance (or its withdrawal) as a reason it did not have to fix an error, that argument now carries less weight on its own than it once might have. What matters is what the statute requires.
A free case review can assess how this ruling affects a claim, and there is no fee unless we win.
Sources
Primary
Commentary we reviewed
- Commentary: Supreme Court gives courts wide latitude to disregard FCC guidance on the TCPA (Reed Smith)
- Resource: McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson companion material (NCLC Digital Library)
Updated November 1, 2026. "Our take" is the firm's opinion. This page is general information, not legal advice, and later decisions may change the law.