Which federal act does NOT contain provisions for preempting stricter state laws?

The Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, which authorized the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) do not contain broad preemption provisions that would prevent states from enacting stricter laws. These federal acts establish a baseline of protection. States are generally free to create more stringent requirements for telemarketers, such as stricter do-not-call rules or limitations on calling times, that are not inconsistent with the federal framework. This contrasts with acts like CAN-SPAM and FACTA, which have explicit and broad preemption clauses to create national uniformity.

A. The CAN-SPAM Act explicitly preempts most state laws that regulate commercial email, establishing a uniform national standard.
B. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule states that it supersedes any inconsistent state or local laws.
C. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) contains numerous provisions that expressly preempt state laws to standardize credit reporting and identity theft rules.

1. Federal Communications Commission. (n.d.). Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. 47 U.S.C. § 227(f)(1) notes that states can bring civil actions on behalf of residents, and subsection (g) preserves state law unless it is inconsistent.

2. Swire, P. P., Desai, D. R., & Miller, C. L. M. (2022). U.S. Private-Sector Privacy: Law and Regulation for the Information Age (4th ed.). Chapter 13, Section on "Preemption" discusses the limited preemption of the TCPA compared to other acts.

3. Federal Trade Commission. (2010). Complying with the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Section: "Who is Covered by the TSR and Who is Not?". The rule coexists with state laws.