Three months. That’s how long a loan application lets a lender make sales calls to a number on the National Do Not Call Registry. After that, an applicant who never borrowed is a stranger again. Consumer lenders face three sets of rules at once: TCPA consent for automated marketing, Do Not Call limits on sales calls, and the FTC’s ban on advance fees for loans. A lender that keeps clean application dates and lead records usually has more defenses than a demand letter assumes.
Can a lender call loan applicants on the Do Not Call Registry?
Yes, for a limited time. The FCC’s rule at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(5) bases an established business relationship on a purchase or transaction “within the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding the date of the telephone call” or on an inquiry or application “within the three months immediately preceding the date of the call.” A telephone solicitation to someone with that relationship isn’t covered by the Do Not Call rules.
For a lender, the two clocks work differently. A borrower who took out a loan is a customer, and the 18-month window runs from the last purchase or transaction. Whether each monthly payment restarts that clock is a fair argument, but it isn’t one to build a campaign on. An applicant who was declined, or who never finished the application, gets only the three-month window. Many Do Not Call cases against lenders come from marketing lists that mix the two groups, so a declined applicant from last year gets the same refinance call as a current borrower.
The relationship also ends on request. The same rule says a seller-specific do-not-call request “terminates an established business relationship for purposes of telemarketing and telephone solicitation even if the subscriber continues to do business with the seller.” A borrower who asks to stop getting offers can still get payment calls, but not sales calls. The post on bank and credit union marketing covers how affiliates fit into the relationship.
What consent does a lender need for marketing texts and robocalls?
Prior express written consent, when the message is automated. Under § 64.1200(a)(2), a call or text that “includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing,” sent to a cell phone with an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice, needs “the prior express written consent of the called party.” The rule defines that consent as a signed agreement that “clearly authorizes the seller” to send those messages.
The word “seller” is where lenders get caught. Online lending runs on comparison sites and lead marketplaces. A consumer enters income and loan details on one form, and the lead is sold to several lenders or to a broker that calls on their behalf. A lender buying that lead needs a consent record that authorizes it, not just the site that collected the form. The FCC’s 2023 rule requiring consent to name a single seller never took effect, because the Eleventh Circuit vacated it in January 2025, but the existing definition still asks whether the consumer authorized this seller.
Lenders should ask the lead source for the form as the consumer saw it, with the lender’s name visible at the time of submission, not a list of partners behind a hyperlink. That’s the record that wins or loses a consent case. A screenshot taken months later of a form that has since changed is worth very little.
The autodialer claim is narrower than many demand letters suggest. The rule defines an autodialer as equipment that can store or produce numbers “using a random or sequential number generator” and dial them, the definition provides. A platform that texts a list of applicants usually doesn’t fit. Prerecorded and artificial-voice calls are different, since the voice itself triggers the consent rule, and lenders using AI voice agents for outreach should treat them as artificial-voice calls.
Are loan servicing and payment calls telemarketing?
Usually not, as long as they stick to the loan. The FCC’s rule defines telemarketing as a call or message “for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services.” A payment reminder, a past-due notice, or a call about a missing document isn’t selling anything, so the written-consent rule and the Do Not Call rules don’t apply to it.
That doesn’t make servicing calls risk-free. The basic rule in § 64.1200(a)(1) still bars autodialed or prerecorded calls to cell phones without “the prior express consent of the called party.” For most lenders, that consent comes from the number the borrower put on the application, so the application record is the first thing to pull when a servicing claim arrives.
The trap is the mixed message. A payment reminder that adds a line about qualifying for a lower rate has become a marketing message, and it has to meet the marketing rules on its own. Servicing templates shouldn’t carry offers, and the rule should be written down, because marketing teams will ask.
Consent can also be withdrawn. Under § 64.1200(a)(10), a borrower may revoke consent “by using any reasonable method,” and a reply of “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe” counts automatically. Revocation reaches the automated calls and texts. A live, manually dialed call about the account isn’t covered by the robocall rule, though a borrower who asks for no calls at all should be taken at their word.
| Call or message | Rule | What the lender needs | Where the defense starts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marketing text or prerecorded offer to a cell phone | § 64.1200(a)(2) | Prior express written consent naming the lender | The form as the consumer saw it |
| Live sales call to a Registry number | § 64.1200(c)(2) and (f)(5) | A transaction within 18 months or an application within three months | Application and loan dates |
| Automated payment reminder to a cell phone | § 64.1200(a)(1) | Prior express consent, usually from the application | The number on the application |
| Call after a reassigned number | § 64.1200(m) | A database query before the call | Query records and dates |
What does the Telemarketing Sales Rule add for loan offers?
A ban on advance fees when approval is promised. The FTC’s rule at 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(4) makes it an abusive practice to request or receive “payment of any fee or consideration in advance of obtaining a loan or other extension of credit” when the seller or telemarketer has promised, or represented a high likelihood of, success in getting the loan.
This rule matters most to loan brokers and to lenders that charge application or processing fees. A script that tells the consumer they’re pre-approved and then asks for a fee before funding is the pattern it targets. Lenders that don’t charge anything until the loan closes are mostly outside it, but brokers and lead partners working for them may not be, and their scripts deserve a review.
Inbound calls don’t escape it. The TSR usually exempts calls a consumer makes in response to an ad, but § 310.6(b)(5) says the exemption doesn’t apply to ads for offers described in “§ 310.4(a)(2) through (4),” which includes advance-fee loans and credit repair. Private suits under the TSR are limited by 15 U.S.C. § 6104 to large actual losses, so the TSR usually shows up as an FTC or state matter, or as evidence of carelessness in a private TCPA case.
Who is liable when a borrower’s number is reassigned?
The caller, unless it used the reassigned numbers database. Borrowers change phone numbers during multi-year loans, and the new owner of the number never consented to anything. The FCC’s safe harbor in § 64.1200(m) protects a caller that checked the database and got an erroneous “no” response, with the caller “bearing the burden of proof and persuasion.”
Lenders are a natural fit for that database because their customer lists are long-lived. Querying it before each automated campaign, and keeping the query results, is cheap compared with a wrong-number class action. The earlier post on wrong-number exposure covers how those claims are pleaded. More on the firm’s work is on its page for consumer finance TCPA defense.
Records to pull when a lender gets a TCPA claim
- Place a hold on call and text logs, dialer and texting platform data, and the consent and application records for each number.
- Export opt-out requests and internal do-not-call entries for those numbers, with the date each was received.
- Pull the Registry scrub records and version dates, plus any reassigned numbers database queries.
- Gather lead purchase agreements, the lead forms as consumers saw them, call scripts, and any prerecorded or AI-voice files.
- Talk to a lawyer before responding to the demand, contacting the borrower, or adjusting the loan as part of a settlement.
Questions about lender calls and texts
Does a loan application count as written consent for marketing texts?
Not by itself. An application usually gives the lender consent to contact the borrower about the application and the loan. Written consent for automated marketing needs a signed agreement that expressly authorizes marketing messages, with the required disclosure that signing isn’t a condition of the loan. Lenders that want to text offers should collect that consent separately, in a box the applicant checks.
Can a lender text a borrower about a late payment?
Generally yes, if the message is purely about the account and the lender has the borrower’s consent to be contacted at that number. The text shouldn’t include a refinance or credit offer. If the borrower replies “stop,” the automated messages should end, and the lender can switch to live calls or mail. State debt collection laws may also limit how often the lender reaches out.
Do the rules apply to a loan officer texting from a personal phone?
Often, yes. The consent and Do Not Call rules focus on the message and who it’s for, not on the device. A loan officer sending one-off texts from a phone usually doesn’t raise an autodialer issue, but marketing texts to Registry numbers can still raise a Do Not Call claim. Lenders should log those texts like any other.
Are lead generators liable for calls made by the lender?
Sometimes. A lead generator that wrote defective consent language or placed the calls itself can face claims directly. The lender that bought the lead is usually the bigger target, because it’s the seller named in the complaint. The lead purchase agreement decides who pays, so its consent warranty and indemnity terms deserve close review before the first lead arrives.
When a lender is the defendant
If your company is accused of calling or texting loan applicants without consent, the application dates and the lead form behind each number usually decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving texts to purchased loan leads. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The TCPA is 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. The FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule is at 16 C.F.R. part 310, issued under 15 U.S.C. § 6104 and the rest of the Telemarketing Act.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of June 19, 2026. 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.