Eleventh Circuit Vacates the TCPA One-to-One Consent Rule

The FCC’s one-to-one consent rule never took effect. Its vacatur removed a new restriction on how businesses could obtain permission through lead-generation forms. It didn’t turn every purchased lead into permission to call. A business defending a TCPA demand still needs evidence of what the customer agreed to, which seller that agreement covered, and whether the challenged contact stayed within that permission.

What did the Eleventh Circuit set aside?

In its January 24, 2025 opinion in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277, the Eleventh Circuit stated: “One-to-one consent is not required.” The court vacated Part III.D of the FCC’s 2023 order. That was the part imposing the new consent restrictions, without setting aside the entire body of TCPA regulations.

The opinion describes the second restriction as requiring calls to be “logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted the consent.” Both restrictions were set aside. The decision concerned a challenge to an agency rule, and it wasn’t a judgment that a particular lead seller’s consent form defeated every possible customer claim.

That distinction matters when a demand letter invokes the abandoned rule. I would first identify the precise provision the claimant says was violated because, if the demand depends on a rule that never took effect, the defense should say so and identify the applicable law. There’s no reason to accept a demand’s description of the legal standard without checking it against the source.

Which consent requirements remain relevant?

The underlying statute still matters. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) uses the phrase “prior express consent” in its restriction on specified calls to cellphones. That restriction concerns calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. A prerecorded voice is a voice recorded before the call, rather than a person speaking live.

The current FCC regulation contains a written-consent requirement for covered advertising and telemarketing calls, subject to its stated exceptions. Prior express written consent means a qualifying signed agreement authorizing the covered calls, and an electronic signature can qualify. The analysis depends on the calling technology and purpose, as well as the destination. An ordinary text isn’t automatically an autodialer call because software sent it.

The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion expressly cautioned: “The 2012 Order is not at issue in this case.” I wouldn’t cite this decision as though it erased every written-consent requirement. Separate disputes over a regulation’s statutory basis require their own analysis. This decision supplies a focused answer about the two restrictions it reviewed.

How should a lead buyer evaluate its records?

A vendor’s assurance isn’t enough. The useful evidence is the version of the form shown to the person who entered the number, together with a record connecting that interaction to the resulting lead and explaining which disclosure appeared before the person agreed to receive calls. A current screenshot may show today’s form while proving little about last year’s transaction, especially when the vendor has revised the disclosure or changed the list of sellers since collecting the number.

I would ask for the consent language and the surrounding screen as they appeared at the time, including any seller list or linked disclosure. Then I’d compare those records with the actual caller and the campaign, a comparison that can reveal a mismatch before counsel commits to a factual position in a response letter. It can also identify a strong defense that a bare spreadsheet of names and numbers conceals.

Don’t confuse permission to contact someone with proof that the permission covered a particular contact. Although the person may have supplied a number for a particular purpose, a later opt-out may change the analysis for subsequent contacts, making the sequence of events essential to assessing the defense. A reassigned number may raise a different issue altogether. None of those questions is answered by pointing out that the one-to-one rule was vacated.

The same caution applies to a vendor contract because a contractual promise to obtain consent can matter in a dispute between buyer and vendor, but it doesn’t itself establish what the called person authorized. I consider access to transaction-level evidence a practical priority when reviewing lead relationships. A business shouldn’t discover after receiving a complaint that its vendor retains only a certification and has deleted the form history.

What should the business preserve after a demand?

Preservation needs to reach the vendor’s records as well as the company’s own systems. Because routine deletion can remove the only version of a form that explains the consent defense, counsel can help define a proportionate hold and identify which third parties need notice.

1. Preserve the challenged call and text logs, platform data, and consent records, including the form version tied to each number. Put relevant records under a litigation hold when a claim arrives.
2. Retrieve opt-out and internal do-not-call records with their timestamps so counsel can compare permission with subsequent contacts.
3. Obtain the National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and the dates of the list versions used. The Registry is the federal list of numbers whose users have requested limits on telemarketing calls.
4. Collect lead-source and calling-vendor contracts, campaign scripts, and recorded or AI-voice files. Ask who retains the original consent evidence.
5. Consult a lawyer before answering the demand, contacting the claimant, or proposing a settlement.

Defending a claim involving purchased leads

If your company faces a TCPA demand involving purchased leads, the actual consent record and the legal theory in the demand deserve separate review. I would preserve both before asking anyone to reconstruct what happened from memory.

Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving lead-generation calls and marketing texts. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025); 47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of October 14, 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.