By Helen Mac Murray, Founding Partner, Mac Murray & Shuster LLP
Most organizations believe they have a contact compliance program. They have policies, suppression lists, legal guidance, training, and technology intended to prevent improper communications.
Then a regulator, auditor, plaintiff's attorney, or board member asks a deceptively simple question: Can you prove what happened?
Not what the policy says should happen today. What actually happened when a specific call was placed, a text was sent, or a campaign was launched months or even years ago. Which rules were in effect? What consent was on file? Was an exemption applied, and by whom? Were the systems working as intended?
In my practice, that question surfaces constantly. As I often tell clients, proving compliance is "a problem all the time, every time."
The problem is becoming more urgent. Contact regulations continue to evolve at the federal and state level. Communication channels are multiplying. And automated and AI-driven systems now make more of the decisions about who is contacted, when, through which channel, and for what purpose. And that’s no defense.
In this environment, a compliance program cannot be judged by whether it passed its last audit. It must be judged by whether every contact decision can be explained, supported, and verified. That requires thinking about contact governance not as a set of policies, but as a chain of trust.
Trust Is a Chain, Not a Checkpoint
A defensible contact program rests on four connected links. Each depends on the one before it.
Few organizations can demonstrate all four. Most do not have specialists on staff with deep knowledge of federal and state contact rules, so even the first link carries a serious gap. Without that depth, the natural response is to over-apply the rules to stay safe. Every link that follows inherits the gap, and when an inquiry arrives, it is the weakest link that determines the outcome.
Why Periodic Audits Are No Longer Enough
Traditional audits remain essential, but they capture a process at a point in time. Between reviews, consent records change, suppression lists are updated, campaign logic evolves, and new channels come online. Controls that worked during the last review may no longer be working today.
Audits also depend on the quality of available evidence. Compliance teams often must reconcile records across CRM platforms, dialers, consent databases, suppression files, and third-party providers. When those records are incomplete or inconsistent, establishing what happened before a particular contact becomes a forensic exercise.
These gaps create two distinct risks. The first is familiar: an unauthorized communication that exposes the organization to enforcement or litigation.
The second is less discussed but equally real: a lack of depth and nuance in applying the laws creates over-suppression. When an organization cannot confidently determine whether a contact is permissible, the apparently safe choice is not to make it. Certainly, that’s what the lawyers will tell you. Consumers who could lawfully be reached are excluded, and sales, service, collections, and retention all suffer.
Excessive suppression is not evidence of a strong program. More often, it signals that the organization cannot distinguish unacceptable risk from lawful opportunity. The goal of governance is not maximum contact or minimum contact. It is the ability to answer, with confidence, who can be contacted, for what purpose, through which channel, and under what conditions.
From Policies to Continuous Controls
Policies describe what an organization intends to do. Controls determine what actually happens.
Before a call is placed, a text is sent, or an AI agent initiates an interaction, the organization may need to evaluate DNC restrictions, consent, exemptions, calling-time rules, frequency limits, communication purpose, and internal risk policies. Manual review alone cannot apply that complexity consistently across millions of interactions.
A more effective approach embeds governance into the decision itself, applying a common framework across business units, platforms, and channels. A mature framework supports five capabilities:
The value is not automation for its own sake. It is the ability to turn legal requirements into repeatable decisions, and to show that each decision is supported by evidence quickly produceable upon need.
Building a Record Before You Need It
When a complaint, regulatory inquiry, or lawsuit arises, the response often depends on the quality of the organization's records.
Consider a consumer who revokes permission to be contacted. A record of the request matters, but it does not establish whether the request reached the relevant systems, whether later contacts were evaluated against it, or whether an exception was properly applied.
A defensible record connects the sequence: the consumer's preference, the information available when the decision was made, the control applied, and the resulting action. This is consent lineage and decision traceability. The organization should be able to show how authorization was obtained, how it changed, and how it shaped every subsequent contact decision.
Timing matters. By the time an inquiry arrives, employees may have changed roles, systems may have been reconfigured, and the data visible today may no longer reflect conditions on the date in question. A mature organization should be able to produce a coherent record, not reconstruct one under pressure. Having to admit to a regulator that you need to create such a record immediately shows that compliance is not a company priority.
Technology can make that record more complete and accessible. But an audit trail is only as reliable as the data, control design, and governance behind it. No platform independently establishes legal compliance or eliminates all risk.
Where the Chain Breaks
In my experience, the most common failure is not a misreading of the law. It is the gap between legal intent and operational reality.
Many programs grow reactively. A new regulation produces a new policy. A lawsuit adds an approval step. A business unit adopts its own suppression process. A new channel introduces another workflow. Each decision is reasonable on its own. Together, they produce a program in which legal, compliance, marketing, operations, and technology each see only part of the picture.
Legal understands the obligations but lacks visibility into how they are implemented. Marketing knows which audiences it wants to reach but not why large portions are suppressed. Technology runs the platforms without owning the legal reasoning behind the rules. Executives receive reports without knowing whether they reflect every interaction or only a sample.
Neither legal advice nor technology closes this gap alone. Technology can automate a rule, but it cannot determine whether that rule reflects the correct legal interpretation. Counsel can define an organization's obligations, but a legal memorandum cannot ensure those obligations are enforced across every interaction.
This is why contact governance belongs inside the enterprise GRC framework. Legal defines expectations. Business leaders own outreach. Technology implements controls. Internal audit independently assesses whether those controls work. Connecting these roles through documented ownership, testing, exception management, and reporting is what turns compliance into a managed business capability. In the great majority of companies with which I work, large or small, this is not being done. It creates substantial liability for the company.
Why the Industry Needs a Standard
Other areas of enterprise risk have long had recognized frameworks for demonstrating that a program is designed, operating, and evidenced. Contact governance has not. An organization may have experienced counsel, sophisticated technology, trained staff, and retained interaction records. Those components do not automatically add up to an integrated program that an outside party has evaluated.
A meaningful standard should ask whether the organization has:
That second element is the one most organizations cannot supply on their own. Few have a single expert who understands how every rule interacts and can ensure each is implemented optimally. A credible standard must bring that expertise to the table, both in how its criteria are defined and in how programs are reviewed against them.
Certification against such a standard is not a guarantee that no violation will ever occur. No credible framework can eliminate human error, inaccurate data, system failure, or regulatory disagreement.
Its value is different. It provides a structured, evidence-based demonstration that the organization has taken defined and verifiable steps to understand its obligations, operationalize them, and maintain a defensible program. That is a far stronger position than simply stating, "We have a compliance program."
Connecting Legal Intent with Operational Reality
Because neither counsel nor technology can complete the chain alone, Mac Murray & Shuster partnered with Gryphon, a contact governance platform provider, to develop Contact Governance Certified™.
The division of responsibility mirrors the chain itself. Mac Murray & Shuster brings the legal and regulatory experience that defines the certification criteria, control interpretations, evidence requirements, and exception treatment, and conducts the independent review. Gryphon brings the operational expertise to enforce those controls in real time and preserve the evidence that demonstrates how a program performs at scale.
Together, the partnership connects what should happen with what actually happens.
For organizations evaluating their own programs, the starting point is the same with or without certification. Map the systems involved in consumer outreach. Identify where consent originates and how it reaches the platforms that initiate contact. Find where decisions and evidence are retained, and where they are not. Then close the gaps, starting with the weakest link.
The goal is to make audit readiness a byproduct of how the organization operates, not a special project launched when an inquiry arrives.
Because when regulators ask what happened, believing you were compliant is not enough. You must be able to prove it.
Latest News
