Where RCS Business Messaging really stands in 2026, and why the gap between carrying traffic and monetising it is about to define operator strategy.
For nearly two decades, RCS was the messaging standard that never quite arrived. It was the perennial “next year” technology — technically capable, strategically obvious, and perpetually stalled by a fragmented device ecosystem and a chicken-and-egg standoff between operators, handset makers and brands.
That era is over. And it ended faster than most of the industry expected.
The inflection point is behind us
The catalyst was Apple’s decision to support RCS in iOS. At a stroke it removed the single biggest structural barrier that had held the standard back — the absence of half the handset base. What had been a fragmented, Android-first proposition became, almost overnight, an addressable channel across the smartphone market.
The numbers since are hard to argue with:
- The active RCS user base is on track to reach around 3.8 billion by the end of 2026 — roughly 40% of global mobile subscribers. [Juniper Research]
- Global RCS-for-Business operator revenue is forecast to grow from about $2bn in 2026 to $6.5bn by 2030. [MobileSquared]
- Business message volume is projected to jump from around 50 billion in 2025 to 200 billion by 2029. [Juniper Research]
This is no longer a technology waiting for its moment. The moment has arrived.
Deployed is not the same as monetised
Here is the part the adoption curve hides.
More than 180 operators have signed up with Google for RCS. However, many operators are carrying the traffic without capturing the value, and in doing so they risk being reduced to a pipe while the commercial upside accrues to the platforms and aggregators sitting on top of them.
The window to change that is open now, but it will not stay open indefinitely. RCS is forecast to move from around 3% of global operator business-messaging revenue in 2024 to roughly 18% by 2029 [Juniper Research] — a six-fold shift in five years. Operators that establish the commercial architecture early — verified agent onboarding, termination billing, content and traffic controls — capture that curve as it rises. Those that wait inherit the traffic without the leverage.
Underlying this is a strategic choice every operator now faces: how much of the RCS Business Messaging value chain to actually own. Larger operators can justify greater investment in the delivery infrastructure for RCS; smaller operators will be more reliant on Google and indeed aggregators to provide this. But the decision itself — how much control to keep versus how much to hand upstream — is quietly one of the most consequential calls in the operator’s messaging strategy this decade.
The trust dimension: RCS expands the fraud surface
There is a second reason control matters, and it has nothing to do with billing.
Application-to-person messaging is a large but leak-prone revenue base — worth an estimated $40–70bn annually worldwide, with grey-route leakage historically running into billions of dollars a year through disguised A2P traffic, exploited interconnect agreements and SIM farms abusing consumer bundles. In parallel, the market has been shifting away from cheap, unreliable grey routes toward verified, secure channels, as enterprises prioritise deliverability and brand safety amid relentless smishing.
RCS does not resolve this problem. It expands the surface.
The most acute threat right now is not exotic. A large share of fraud on RCS today takes the form of person-to-person traffic masquerading as application-to-person business messaging — fraudulent senders routing over the cheaper, less-governed P2P path while dressing their messages up to mimic verified, branded communication. It is the grey-route problem that has dogged SMS for a decade, re-emerging on a richer canvas: because the P2P path sits outside the verified-agent controls that govern legitimate A2P RCS, a spoofed message can borrow the visual trust of a brand without ever passing through the checks that trust is supposed to depend on. For operators, that makes clear visibility into what is genuinely A2P versus P2P the first line of defence, not an afterthought.
A richer, more branded, more trusted-looking channel is precisely what makes fraud more dangerous, not less. Early reports already point to smishing and spam migrating onto RCS, alongside newer vectors: group-chat spoofing that impersonates legitimate organisations, and the open question of how agent verification holds up at the scale of hundreds of thousands of enterprises. And critically, business messaging on RCS is transit-encrypted rather than end-to-end encrypted — which means the burden of trust sits with network-side controls, not the protocol itself.
For operators, that reframes RCS from a pure engagement opportunity into a trust responsibility. A premium channel that subscribers are taught to trust is only an asset for as long as it stays clean.
What separates the winners
The real question for operators in 2026 is no longer “should we support RCS?” — it is “are we running it as a monetised, verified, fraud-protected channel we control, or simply letting it flow through us?”
The operators who pull away over the next few years will be the ones who treat RCS Business Messaging as an owned commercial and trust asset — providing real value in the delivery chain, governing who gets to message subscribers, and extending that into adjacent monetisation such as network APIs and fraud signalling, a category already forecast to grow past $8bn by 2030 under initiatives like GSMA Open Gateway.
The ones who don’t will still carry the traffic. They just won’t own the outcome.
If you would like to discuss RCS monetisation please reach out to us here for a detailed overview on your options.
