PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10] · D–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 6, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10610 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10610 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10610 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10610 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-24 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Stop Spam Calls Act would require the Federal Communications Commission to change a regulatory definition of “prior express written consent”—permission expressly given in writing beforehand. It would require the wording from a specified 2024 rule. The bill does not reproduce that wording, so the supplied evidence does not establish precisely how consent requirements would change for individual people or businesses.
This Act may be cited as the Stop Spam Calls Act.
2. Prior express written consent definition (a) Revision Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall revise section 64.1200(f)(9) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor to such regulation) to have such section read as such section appears (as revised) in the final rule of the Commission titled Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful Text Messages, Implementation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls and published on January 26, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 5098).
Within one year after enactment, the Federal Communications Commission would have to revise the specified regulatory definition, or its successor, to match the version in the agency’s final rule published January 26, 2024.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall revise section 64.1200(f)(9) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor to such regulation) to have such section read as such section appears (as revised) in the final rule of the Commission titled Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful Text Messages, Implementation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls and published on January 26, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 5098).
The revised definition would take effect 18 months after enactment.
(b) Applicability Section 64.1200(f)(9) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as revised pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, shall take effect beginning on the date that is 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The bill would prohibit interpreting this section as evidence that the Federal Communications Commission previously lacked authority to require consent in writing under the specified regulation. This is an instruction about interpreting the bill, rather than an independent determination of the agency’s previous authority.
(c) Rule of construction Nothing in this section may be construed to demonstrate that the Federal Communications Commission did not, prior to the date of the enactment of this section, have the authority to require that prior express consent be in writing for purposes of section 64.1200 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor to such regulation).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 6, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on September 24, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-06T08:05:56Z. 2026-09-24: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2026-09-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-24. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; member disclosures, committee reports, and other accompanying materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; the referenced regulatory wording and other versions or accompanying materials were not supplied.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 6, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI