Solar and Home Improvement Leads: TCPA Risk in Appointment Setting

Many solar and roofing appointments start with a purchased lead, a call center the seller doesn’t run, and sometimes a recorded voice. Each piece can become a Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim against the seller. A federal appeals court vacated the FCC’s one-to-one consent rule on January 24, 2025, so shared lead forms aren’t dead. A seller facing one of these claims often has more defenses than the demand letter suggests, and most of them depend on records it can pull today.

Why do home improvement appointment calls draw TCPA suits?

Because the seller often didn’t make the call or collect the consent.

A common setup is a homeowner filling out a form on a comparison or quote site, a lead generator selling that form to one or more installers, and an appointment setter calling or texting to book an in-home visit. In the trade group’s words, as the Eleventh Circuit recounted them, comparison-shopping sites offer a one-stop means of “comparing options for health insurance, auto loans, home repairs, and other services,” according to the opinion in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC.

Enforcers have noticed. In a 2023 complaint, the United States and Arizona alleged that a residential solar seller “pays telemarketers to call consumers and persuade them to schedule an appointment” for an in-home consultation, and that its telemarketers placed tens of millions of calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, according to the complaint in United States v. Vision Solar LLC. Those are allegations. The telemarketer and its owner agreed to a stipulated order that states “Defendants neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the Complaint.”

The calls add risk too. A prerecorded call plays a recorded message instead of a live person talking. Some setters use soundboard systems, where an agent clicks recorded clips. The FCC’s consumer bureau rejected the argument that soundboard calls aren’t prerecorded, stating that “The record confirms that soundboard callers use a prerecorded voice to deliver a message” in its 2020 declaratory ruling. The full Commission ruled in 2024 that the TCPA’s prohibition on using an “artificial or prerecorded voice” without consent “includes AI technologies that generate human voices,” in FCC 24-17. How much weight courts give these FCC rulings in private suits is contested, but an AI voice agent booking roof inspections should expect to be treated as an artificial-voice program.

The autodialer claim is narrower. An autodialer must have “the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be called,” under Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, and a dialer working through purchased leads often doesn’t.

Does lead-form consent still work after the one-to-one rule was vacated?

Yes, under the consent standard that applied before the 2023 rule, but that standard still has teeth.

In December 2023, the FCC adopted a rule in FCC 23-107 that would have limited each consent to “no more than one identified seller” and required calls to be logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted the consent. The Eleventh Circuit vacated that part of the order in Insurance Marketing Coalition, holding that it conflicted with the ordinary meaning of “prior express consent” in the statute. The court wrote: “One-to-one consent is not required.” The opinion also recounts the FCC’s counsel agreeing at oral argument that, without the 2023 order, a consumer who checked boxes for three mortgage companies and a fourth for a home repair business could consent to that business’s calls.

The same day, in an order describing the court’s review as pending, the FCC’s consumer bureau postponed the rule’s effective date in DA 25-90 to January 26, 2026, or an earlier date the FCC sets by public notice after the court’s decision, stating that the earlier requirements for prior express written consent “will meanwhile remain in effect.” On April 4, 2025, opposing intervention, the government told the Eleventh Circuit that “The government has decided not to seek further review of this Court’s panel decision vacating an FCC rule,” in its court filing. Non-parties, including a consumer group, have moved to intervene and filed a proposed petition for rehearing en banc, and the court hadn’t ruled on intervention as of this post.

The eCFR’s version of § 64.1200(f)(9) for today’s date still prints the vacated one-to-one language. If a complaint quotes it against a shared lead, I’d answer with the vacatur and DA 25-90.

The older definition of prior express written consent, the signed agreement required before autodialed or prerecorded marketing calls, survives. The court noted, “The 2012 Order is not at issue in this case.” That definition describes an agreement “bearing the signature of the person called that clearly authorizes the seller” to deliver those calls, as quoted in the same opinion. The agreement must also identify the phone number and carry a clear and conspicuous disclosure that signing authorizes those calls and isn’t a condition of any purchase, under § 64.1200(f)(9)(i). If those elements are present, I’d treat a form that lists a few named installers as defensible and a form that links to a page of hundreds of marketing partners as a fight about whether the homeowner actually authorized calls from your company. Whether a call fell within what the homeowner agreed to is a separate question, covered in a post on the scope of TCPA consent.

Is the seller liable for the appointment setter’s calls?

It can be, through agency law, even though it never dialed.

The FCC has ruled that a seller “may be held vicariously liable under federal common law principles of agency for violations of either section 227(b) or section 227(c) that are committed by third-party telemarketers,” in its 2013 Dish Network declaratory ruling. The Supreme Court noted that ruling without questioning it in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez.

Contracts help if the seller acts on them. In Jones v. Royal Administration Services, Inc., the Ninth Circuit rejected actual authority for a vendor’s calls, writing that “Royal expressly prohibited AAAP from employing these marketing tools.” The Arizona solar complaint shows the other side, alleging that the seller “caused its telemarketers” to make the calls or assisted them by continuing to pay for their services while knowing or consciously avoiding knowing of the violations. A clause banning robocalls won’t help a seller that keeps paying for appointments after complaints arrive.

Where do Do Not Call rules and state laws reach home improvement sellers?

Often, because these are sales calls to homeowners’ own phones.

The National Do Not Call Registry is the federal list of numbers whose owners don’t want sales calls. The FCC’s Registry and internal-list rules protect a “residential telephone subscriber,” so a number used for business is a defense. The FCC applies them to “telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls or text messages to wireless telephone numbers” to the extent described in its 2003 order, under § 64.1200(e). The private claim belongs to someone who received “more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection,” and the statute gives an affirmative defense to a defendant that “established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures” to prevent those calls, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).

Purchased leads create a Do Not Call problem. Written permission defeats a Registry claim only if it’s “a signed, written agreement between the consumer and seller which states that the consumer agrees to be contacted by this seller and includes the telephone number to which the calls may be placed,” under § 64.1200(c)(2)(ii). An inquiry can create an established business relationship for three months, but the rule requires a voluntary two-way communication between the homeowner and the company and an inquiry about products or services that company offers, in § 64.1200(f)(5). Whether a lead form supports either defense depends on whether it named your company. In my view, aged, generic leads for live calls to Registry numbers are the riskiest purchase a home improvement seller can make.

The Registry safe harbor protects a seller that shows a violation resulted from error and that, as a routine business practice, keeps written procedures, trains its staff and vendors, keeps a list of numbers it may not call, buys its own Registry access, and scrubs against a Registry version obtained “no more than 31 days prior to the date any call is made,” with records documenting the process, under § 64.1200(c)(2)(i). Your setter’s scrub files are part of your defense. The internal list rules, which I discussed in a post on internal Do Not Call policies, add a trap for sellers who outsource: when a vendor keeps the list, “the person or entity on whose behalf the call is made will be liable for any failures to honor the do-not-call request,” under § 64.1200(d)(3).

State law stacks on top. Florida’s Telephone Solicitation Act lets a called party recover “actual damages or $500, whichever is greater,” with discretionary trebling for willful or knowing violations, under Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10). For text message solicitations, though, the recipient must reply STOP first, and a suit can follow only if the recipient doesn’t consent to the texts and they’re still coming 15 days after that notice. The statute’s consent rule for sales calls also applies only to calls using an automated system for selecting and dialing numbers or a recorded message. Arizona’s attorney general joined the solar complaint above under its own telemarketing statute. The FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule also reaches these calls, and I compared its record-keeping duties to the TCPA’s in a post on the Telemarketing Sales Rule.

How do the April 11 revocation rules affect appointment setters?

They make opt-outs easier to give and shorten the time to honor them.

On April 11, 2025, the FCC’s revocation rules adopted in its 2024 TCPA consent order take effect, as announced in the Federal Register on October 11, 2024. Under the new § 64.1200(a)(10), a homeowner may revoke consent given for autodialed or prerecorded calls and texts, or for Do Not Call permission, by any reasonable method, and a reply of stop, quit, end, revoke, opt out, cancel, or unsubscribe to an incoming text counts automatically. Revocations must be honored “within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days from receipt of such request,” under the published rule. The deadline for honoring internal do-not-call requests under § 64.1200(d)(3) drops from 30 days to ten business days on the same date.

For sellers using outside setters, the issue is relay time. Expect a plaintiff to argue that a homeowner who told the setter to stop also told your company. If your follow-up texts go out weeks later because the setter sends a monthly spreadsheet, that argument gets easier. I’d require setters to pass opt-outs to the seller daily, in a format your platform can ingest automatically. The same gap opens when customers text STOP to a sales rep’s own phone, covered in our post on sales reps texting from personal phones.

What should a seller check before buying home improvement leads?

How the lead was made and whether the vendor can prove the consent.

The stipulated order with the Arizona solar telemarketer is a useful template. It requires the settling defendants, before buying from a new lead generator, to “Review and determine the methods used by the Lead Generator” to obtain leads, and it bars buying leads generated through calls that don’t comply with the order, according to the order.

I’d ask each vendor for a dated capture of every form that feeds you, with your company’s name in the consent language. Ask how many installers buy the same lead and whether any lead came from an outbound call or text, because a lead generated by an unlawful call carries the problem with it. Then request the full consent record for twenty leads within 48 hours. A vendor that can’t produce them in two days won’t in discovery either. The contract should require the vendor to keep each consent record and deliver it on request within days. I’d weigh diligence over indemnity, because a lead generator with no assets is a poor indemnitor.

Claim theories and defenses at a glance

Before you answer a home improvement call claim

1. Put the lead record and consent certificate for the claimant’s number, plus the dialer logs and recordings, under a litigation hold at your company and every vendor.
2. Get the dated opt-out history from the setter and your own platform, including verbal requests.
3. Obtain the setter’s Registry scrub files and download dates for each campaign that reached the number.
4. Collect the lead purchase agreement, the setter’s contract, the scripts, and any soundboard or AI-voice files.
5. Bring in a lawyer before anyone responds to the demand, calls the homeowner back, or offers to settle.

The firm’s page for TCPA defense attorneys in California covers how claims involving purchased leads and third-party appointment-setting calls are evaluated, from the records to the first response.

Questions home improvement sellers ask about TCPA exposure

Does a homeowner’s consent to the lead generator cover our appointment setter?

Only if the consent authorizes calls from your company or on its behalf. A setter booking your appointments is calling on your behalf, so the question is whether the homeowner agreed to hear from your company. Keep the form version and the record tying this homeowner to it.

Are soundboard calls treated as live calls?

Not in the FCC’s view. The FCC’s consumer bureau ruled in 2020 that soundboard callers use a prerecorded voice to deliver a message, so it expects those calls to carry the same consent as any prerecorded call. Courts in private suits decide how much weight a bureau ruling gets, but I wouldn’t build a calling program on the opposite argument. The Commission’s 2024 ruling treats AI-generated voices as artificial voices.

Is the one-to-one consent rule coming back?

It isn’t in effect, and the government has told the Eleventh Circuit it won’t seek further review of the decision that vacated it. Non-parties, including a consumer group, have asked that court for permission to intervene and seek rehearing, and those requests were pending as of this post. Naming a short list of sellers is good practice either way.

Defending a call or text claim tied to purchased leads

If your company is accused of calling or texting homeowners through a lead vendor or appointment setter, the consent records and opt-out logs held by your vendors often decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving purchased leads and third-party appointment-setting calls. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

The statute is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act at 47 U.S.C. § 227. The FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as published in the eCFR through April 7, 2025. The revocation amendments were published at 89 Fed. Reg. 15756 (Mar. 5, 2024), with the April 11, 2025 effective date announced at 89 Fed. Reg. 82518 (Oct. 11, 2024). Florida’s statute is Fla. Stat. § 501.059 (2024 Florida Statutes, Florida Senate site, archived April 6, 2025).

The FCC sources are the Dish Network declaratory ruling, 28 FCC Rcd 6574 (2013), and the soundboard declaratory ruling, DA 20-1507 (CGB Dec. 18, 2020). The Commission’s AI-voice declaratory ruling is FCC 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024), and the one-to-one rule appears in the December 2023 order, FCC 23-107. The bureau’s order postponing the one-to-one rule is DA 25-90 (CGB Jan. 24, 2025).

The court decisions are Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021); Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016); Jones v. Royal Administration Services, Inc., 887 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2018); and Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025). The Eleventh Circuit filings are the proposed petition for rehearing en banc (Mar. 10, 2025) and the government’s filing opposing intervention (Apr. 4, 2025), No. 24-10277. The enforcement records are the complaint and stipulated order in United States v. Vision Solar LLC, No. 2:23-cv-01387 (D. Ariz. filed July 14, 2023).

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of April 7, 2025. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Courts and the FCC change the rules in this area often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.