Modernizing the Ability of Consumers To Control Robocalls

Issuing agencies

Abstract

In this document, the Commission seeks comment on measures to ensure that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) rules that govern robocalls continue to evolve with changes in technology and industry practices. Specifically, we seek comment on reducing the timeframe callers must honor revocation requests, requirements for two- way texting functionality, requiring a revoke all method, and the treatment of affiliates.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 205 (Monday, October 26, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 205 (Monday, October 26, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67239-67243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-21820]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 02-278; FCC 26-67; FRS 373557]


Modernizing the Ability of Consumers To Control Robocalls

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on measures to 
ensure that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) rules that 
govern robocalls continue to evolve with changes in technology and 
industry practices. Specifically, we seek comment on reducing the 
timeframe callers must honor revocation requests, requirements for two-
way texting functionality, requiring a revoke all method, and the 
treatment of affiliates.

DATES: Comments are due on or before November 25, 2026, and reply 
comments are due on or before December 28, 2026.

[[Page 67240]]


ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section of 
this document. Submit comments identified by CG Docket No. 02-278, by 
any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS): <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>. See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    <bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    <bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be 
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    <bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    <bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the 
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701.
    <bullet> Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, 
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street 
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    <bullet> Accessible Formats: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format) or to request reasonable accommodations (e.g. 
accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART), send an 
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a0c09095f5a5e2a0c0909440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0c6c3c3959094e0c6c3c38ec7cfd6">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Richard D. Smith 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#36645f555e57445218655b5f425e7650555518515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="76241f151e17041258251b1f021e3610151558111900">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, (717) 
338-2797.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 
1991, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), in CG Docket No. 
02-278, FCC 26-67, adopted September 30, 2026 and released on October 
1, 2026. The full text of this document is available for public 
inspection during regular business hours at Commission's headquarters 
45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554 or at the following internet 
address: <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A1.pdf</a>.

Synopsis

I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    We seek further comment on additional revisions to our TCPA rules 
that can ensure these rules continue to evolve with changes in 
technology and industry practices.

A. Joint Letter

    On June 30, 2026, American Bankers Association, National Consumer 
Law Center, and ACA International filed a joint letter expressing 
concerns with the Commission's TCPA Consent Order, published at 89 FR 
82518 on October 11, 2024, and proposing additional revisions to our 
TCPA rules. As discussed in greater detail below, we seek comment on 
these proposals including reducing the timeframe to honor revocation 
requests, requiring two-way texting to facilitate revocation requests 
made in response to text messages, requiring a ``revoke all'' method, 
and how revocation requests should apply to affiliates, separate lines 
of business, or divisions of entities of which such businesses are a 
part.

B. Timeframe for Honoring Revocation Requests

    We seek comment on whether to reduce the timeframe for callers to 
honor revocation requests. Consumers are understandably frustrated when 
they continue to receive robocalls after revoking consent. Such delays 
also undermine a consumer's right to determine which robocalls that 
they wish to receive under the privacy protections afforded by the 
TCPA. Our rules currently provide that callers must honor revocation of 
consent requests within a reasonable time from the date that the 
request is made, not to exceed ten business days after receipt of the 
request. In adopting this timeframe, the Commission noted that advances 
in technology over time, including the use of automated and interactive 
technologies, makes the processing of revocation requests more 
efficient and timely and reserved the right to adjust this timeframe as 
necessary.
    Because callers may now designate an exclusive, automated means by 
which consumers must revoke consent, we seek comment on whether they 
can now process revocation requests more quickly and efficiently. As a 
result, we seek comment on whether to reduce the maximum timeframe for 
honoring revocation requests. For example, the Joint Letter suggests 
reducing the deadline to seven business days unless the caller 
demonstrates that processing a revocation beyond seven business days is 
reasonable. Is that a reasonable timeframe for callers to process 
revocation requests? Should the timeframe vary between those callers 
that designate an exclusive means to revoke consent and those that do 
not? Would varying timeframes result in consumer confusion? We seek 
comment on the cost and benefits to reduce the maximum timeframe for 
honoring revocation requests including ways to minimize any burdens on 
smaller entities subject to this obligation. We seek comment on these 
and any other issues relevant to this issue.

C. Two-Way Texting

    We seek comment on whether to eliminate the provision from Sec.  
64.1200(a)(10) of the Commission's rules that allows text senders to 
use a texting protocol that does not allow consumers to revoke consent 
by reply text. Our rules currently permit text senders to utilize a 
texting protocol that does not allow for reply texts when the text 
sender: (1) provides a clear and conspicuous disclosure in each text to 
the consumer that two-way texting is not available due to technical 
limitations of the texting protocol; and (2) clearly and conspicuously 
provides in each text a reasonable alternative method for a consumer to 
revoke consent, such as a telephone number or website.
    In the 2024 TCPA Consent Order, the Commission concluded that while 
there is no mandate that texting parties transmitting an autodialed 
text message must provide consumers with any specific means to revoke 
consent, such as through reply texts, that two-way texting is a 
reasonable and widely recognized means for text recipients to revoke 
prior express consent. In the Joint Letter, ABA, NCLC, and ACA 
International propose a rule amendment that would remove the provision 
from our rules that allows text senders to use one-way texting 
protocols by providing an alternative means in each text to revoke 
consent.
    We seek comment on whether to require senders of text messages 
subject to Sec.  64.1200(a)(10) to provide recipients with the ability 
to use reply texts to revoke consent. In that regard, we seek comment 
on the extent to which text senders currently use texting protocols 
that do not allow for reply texts. Are one-way texting protocols used 
primarily for informational and

[[Page 67241]]

notification purposes or are they also used for telemarketing and 
advertising? Should we consider allowing one-way texting for 
informational messages and require two-way texting only on text 
messages that include an advertisement or telemarketing? To what extent 
would requiring the use of two-way texting protocols enhance the 
ability of text recipients to more easily revoke consent to unwanted 
text messages by replying to the text? Conversely, to what extent would 
eliminating the ability of text senders to use one-way texting 
protocols increase compliance burdens or interfere with the ability to 
communicate with consumers? We seek comment on these and any other 
related issues including how we might minimize any compliance burdens 
for small entities as well as public institutions, such as schools that 
currently use one-way texting services.

D. Revoke All Method

    We seek comment on whether callers should be allowed to treat a 
revocation request as applying to the type of call that prompted the 
revocation only if the caller provides a ``method to revoke consent for 
all types of messages for which consent is required.'' We also seek 
comment on whether we should require any such ``revoke all'' mechanism 
to be automated, and, if so, what specific forms such an automated 
mechanism should take. In light of our rule change allowing callers to 
interpret a revocation request as applying only to the specific 
category of informational robocalls to which the revocation was 
directed, we seek comment on whether consumers would benefit from a 
one-step option to stop all future robocalls. If so, we seek comment on 
what methods should be mandated and how such requirements could be 
designed to minimize compliance burdens, including on small entities. 
We also seek comment on EEI's request for clarification that revocation 
requests apply only to the telephone number for which consent has been 
revoked rather than extend to all telephone numbers associated with a 
customer's account. In that regard, we seek comment on whether this 
request is consistent with the TCPA's reference to obtaining consent of 
the ``called party'' and Commission precedent.
    Alternatively, we seek comment on whether the potential compliance 
burdens and risk of inadvertent revocation of consent to calls that 
they may wish to receive outweigh any such benefits and therefore 
should counsel against adopting such a requirement. To what extent does 
our clarification that revocation requests made in response to 
robocalls with an advertisement or that constitute telemarketing revoke 
consent to all similar robocalls from that caller address concerns that 
consumers will be burdened with multiple revocation requests? We seek 
comment on whether limiting this situation to informational calls 
adequately mitigates those concerns. In addition, we note that one 
commenter opposes any requirement to provide a method to revoke consent 
to all calls arguing that such a requirement is not required by the 
TCPA and would impose significant burdens on callers. To the extent 
that the Joint Letter proposes revocation methods that effectively 
treat a customer's failure to respond to communications intended to 
clarify a revocation request as a revocation of consent for all future 
robocalls, we seek comment on concerns that this is an overly broad 
approach that may not reflect customer intent. We seek comment on these 
and any other related issues in this context.

E. Affiliates and Separate Lines of Businesses or Divisions

    We seek comment on whether further specificity is useful to clarify 
the application of the TCPA's consent and revocation requirements where 
an entity operates through separate affiliates, lines of business, or 
divisions. We note that our current rules for exempted calls to 
residential telephone lines and telemarketing calls provide that ``[i]n 
the absence of a specific request by the subscriber to the contrary, a 
residential subscriber's do-not-call request shall apply to the 
particular entity making the call (or on whose behalf a call is made), 
and will not apply to affiliated entities unless the consumer 
reasonably would expect them to be included given the identification of 
the caller and (for telemarketing calls) the product being 
advertised.''
    We seek comment on whether we should modify this existing standard 
or provide more specific guidance. If so, we seek comment on the form 
of such guidance. We also seek comment on whether this rule or a 
modified rule should be expanded to encompass all robocalls rather than 
limited to exempted and telemarketing calls. In that regard, we note 
that financial and consumer groups have suggested that we adopt a new 
rule governing affiliates and separate lines of businesses or 
divisions. We seek comment on these and any other issues related to 
this matter.

F. Other

    We seek comment on whether there are any additional changes that we 
should consider to our rules that govern revocation of consent in light 
of changes in technology and industry practices including any proposals 
contained in the Joint Letter or EEI Ex Parte not referenced above. For 
example, we note that the Joint Letter proposes to reduce the list of 
standardized words that can be used to revoke consent, eliminates the 
rebuttable presumption analysis contained in the current Sec.  
64.1200(a)(11) of the Commission's rules to determine whether a 
reasonable revocation method has been used when a caller has not 
designated an exclusive means to revoke consent, and allow callers to 
make a confirmation call or text in response to a revocation request. 
In addition, Vibes requests that text senders be allowed to request 
clarification of the category of message from which the consumer 
intended to revoke consent in a confirmation text message. We seek 
comment on these and any other issues relevant to this matter.

II. Procedural Matters

G. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    The FNPRM may contain proposed new or modified information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB 
to comment on these information collection requirements, as required by 
the PRA. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we 
might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

H. Ex Parte Rules

    This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 
1.1200 through 1.1216. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are 
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain 
summaries of the substances of the presentations and not merely a 
listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence 
description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. 
See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex 
parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in 
Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

I. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act

    Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency

[[Page 67242]]

Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document will be available on 
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared 
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and 
rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) 
assessing the possible significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The Commission requests written public 
comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the 
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified in the 
DATES section of this document. The Commission will send a copy of the 
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy. In addition, the FNPRM and 
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks to update various TCPA rules 
that govern consumer's revocation of consent to receive robocalls. This 
FNPRM seeks comment on reducing the maximum timeframe for honoring 
revocation requests, requiring the use of two-way texting protocols 
that allow consumers to revoke consent via reply text message, offering 
a means to revoke consent to all robocalls, and providing greater 
specificity to affiliates. Our objective is to ensure that our rules 
reflect advances in technology and regulatory changes that permit 
callers to process revocation requests in a timely and cost efficient 
manner to ensure that consumers can exercise their right to control 
which robocalls they wish to receive.
B. Legal Basis
    The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-5, and 227 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-155, and 
227.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA 
establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to 
use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; 
agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such 
programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing 
so.
    Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not 
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups 
of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In 
general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 
500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all 
businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million 
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit 
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant 
in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-
profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have 
fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions'' 
are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school 
districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty 
thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we 
estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government 
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
    The rules proposed in the FNPRM will apply to small entities in the 
industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding 
SBA size standard. Where available, we also provide additional 
information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in 
the industries identified below.

                               Table 1--2022 U.S. Census Bureau Data by NAICS Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Regulated industry (footnotes specify
 potentially affected entities  within   NAICS       SBA size standard     Total firms     Total      Percentage
a regulated industry where applicable)    code                                          small firms  small firms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.....   517111  1,500 employees.........        3,403        3,027        88.95
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers     517112  1,500 employees.........        1,184        1,081        91.30
 (except Satellite).
Commercial Banks......................   522110  $850 million in assets..        3,917        2,897        73.96
Credit Unions.........................   522130  $850 million in assets..        4,411        3,671        83.22
Savings Institutions and Other           522180  $850 million in assets..          569          375        65.91
 Depository Credit Intermediation.
Sales Financing.......................   522220  $47 million.............        2,180        1,690        77.52
Consumer Lending......................   522291  $47 million.............        2,918        2,292        78.55
Mortgage and Nonmortgage Loan Brokers.   522310  $15 million.............        4,603        3,966        86.16
Offices of Real Estate Agents and        531210  $15 million.............      150,558      100,559        66.79
 Brokers.
Marketing Consulting Services.........   541613  $19 million.............       50,507       34,127        67.57
Other Services Related to Advertising.   541890  $19 million.............        7,067        4,850        68.63
Facilities Support Service............   561210  $47 million.............        2,941        2,402        81.67
Telemarketing Bureaus and Other          561422  $25.5 million...........        2,380        1,798        75.55
 Contact Centers.
Collection Agencies...................   561440  $19.5 million...........        2,549        1,827        71.68
Schools...............................   611110  $20 million.............       14,088       14,087        99.99
Offices of Physicians Except Mental      621111  $16 million.............      138,120      104,486        75.65
 Health Specialists.
Offices of All Other Miscellaneous       621399  $10 million.............       29,775       18,206        61.15
 Health Practitioners.
General Medical and Surgical Hospitals   622110  $47 million.............        2,280          501        21.97
Business Associations.................   813910  $15.5 million...........       14,599       13,134        89.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 67243]]


                                Table 2--Telecommunications Service Provider Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2025 Universal Service Monitoring Report                   SBA size standard (1,500 employees)
  telecommunications service provider data (data as of  --------------------------------------------------------
                     December 2024)
-------------------------------------------------------- Total number  FCC     Small firms      Percentage small
                    Affected entity                       Form 499A filers                          entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs)............              4,049              3,853              95.16
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs).....              1,175                920              78.30
Interexchange Carriers (IXCs)..........................                112                 92              82.14
Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).........................              5,224              4,773              91.37
Operator Service Providers (OSPs)......................                 26                 24              92.31
Other Toll Carriers....................................                 72                 69              95.83
Paging & Messaging.....................................                 56                 56             100.00
Payphone Service Providers.............................                 25                 24              96.00
Prepaid Card Providers.................................                 47                 45              95.74
Telecommunications Resellers...........................                655                630              96.18
Wired Telecommunications Carriers......................              4,971              4,531              91.15
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)                608                522              85.86
Wireless Telephony.....................................                336                262              77.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting, 
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of 
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, 
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate 
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the 
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record.
    In this FNPRM, we seek comment on whether to reduce the maximum 
timeframe for callers to honor revocation requests. This may require 
callers to take compliance measures to ensure that revocation requests 
are processed within a shorter timeframe than under our current rules. 
We have also sought comment on eliminating the existing rule provision 
that allows text senders to utilize one-way texting protocols that do 
not allow for reply text messages by disclosing this limitation and 
providing a reasonable alternative way for a consumer to revoke 
consent. Eliminating this provision may require some text senders to 
change their current texting protocol to a two-way texting protocol 
that allows for reply text messages. We also seek comment on whether to 
require callers to offer a means to revoke consent to all robocalls 
including whether the compliance burdens outweigh benefits. These may 
entail some compliance burdens and costs on small entities if adopted 
such as requiring callers to alter existing communications systems to 
accommodate these requirements. In this FNPRM, we specifically seek 
comment on these compliance burdens that may impact small entities.

E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any 
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish 
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any 
significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is 
required to include alternatives such as: ``(1) the establishment of 
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take 
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    In this FNPRM, we seek comment on alternatives that minimize the 
economic impact of any rule medication on small entities. For example, 
we seek comment regarding whether the timeframe for honoring revocation 
requests should vary between those callers that designate a method to 
revoke consents and those that do not. This may lessen the compliance 
burdens on smaller entities by reducing the timeframe only in those 
instances in which the caller has designated the method to revoke 
consent and thereby avoid the necessity to process all reasonable 
revocation requests. We have also sought comment on whether only those 
text senders that send messages containing telemarketing should be 
required to utilize two-way texting protocols. This would allow 
interested parties, including smaller entities, that use one-way text 
messaging for informational and notification purposes to continue doing 
so without the necessity to change to a two-way texting protocol. 
Finally, we seek comment on the compliance burdens associated with 
requiring callers to provide a means for consumers to revoke consent to 
all robocalls including ways to minimize the burdens on smaller 
entities.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-21820 Filed 10-23-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>