Does TCPA Consent Travel? Affiliates, Assignees, and Servicers

TCPA consent can travel, but only as far as the relationship it came from. A customer who gave a creditor a number for an account has, in the FCC’s view, consented to calls about that account from a collector acting on the creditor’s behalf. Signed written consent to marketing is narrower: it authorizes the seller it names, and a parent, sister brand, or buyer of the business can’t just borrow it. The established business relationship exception reaches affiliates only when the customer would reasonably expect it to.

When does consent given to one company cover calls from another?

When the second company is calling on behalf of the first, about the same matter.

The FCC addressed this in the debt context and summarized its position in its 2015 Declaratory Ruling. It said a party who gives a wireless number to a creditor in a credit application “reasonably evidences prior express consent by the cell phone subscriber to be contacted at the number regarding the debt,” and added: “That consent is valid not only for calls made by the original creditor, but also for those made by a third party collector acting on behalf of that creditor.”

The same order repeated a principle that limits how far that goes: “the scope of consent must be determined upon the facts of each situation.” In my view, the two quotations together describe the rule a court is likely to apply. A servicer or collector working for the company the customer dealt with, on the account the customer opened, stands in that company’s shoes. A different business pursuing its own goals does not.

Courts weigh FCC statements like these on their own after McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025), in which the Supreme Court held that district courts “are not bound by the agency’s interpretation, but instead must determine the meaning of the law under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation.” In my view, ordinary consent principles point the same way: authorization given for a purpose extends to agents carrying out that purpose.

Does consent survive a rebrand or a change of ownership?

A rebrand, yes, if the same business is still doing the calling. A sale is harder.

In Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC, 847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017), a gym changed its brand affiliation before sending texts to a former member. The Ninth Circuit held his consent still applied, explaining: “From when Van Patten initially joined the gym to when the text messages were sent, ownership and operation of the gym did not change. That the brand affiliation changed does not affect that the gym was owned and operated by the same entities.”

The court’s emphasis on ownership and operation is the warning for acquirers. When a different entity takes over a customer list in an acquisition, its claim to the seller’s consents depends on the deal, the consent language, and what customers were told. Our post on the scope of TCPA consent discusses how courts measure consent against the transaction that produced it.

Does written marketing consent reach affiliates?

Not unless it names them. Prior express written consent, which the FCC requires for autodialed or prerecorded marketing calls and texts to cell phones and for prerecorded marketing calls to residential lines, is “an agreement, in writing, bearing the signature of the person called that clearly authorizes the seller to deliver or cause to be delivered to the person called advertisements or telemarketing messages,” with the telephone number, under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9). The rule defines the seller as the entity “on whose behalf a telephone call or message is initiated.”

The 2023 “one-to-one” rule, which would have limited each consent to a single seller, was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025), and never took effect. A single form can still name several companies. A form that names only one doesn’t authorize the others.

The Do Not Call exception for written permission is similar. It requires “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,” under § 64.1200(c)(2)(ii).

Does the established business relationship cover affiliates?

Only where the customer would expect it to.

The FCC explained in its 2003 order that “affiliates fall within the established business relationship exemption only if the consumer would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered and the identity of the affiliate.” It added that a call “from a company with which a consumer has not formed a business relationship directly, or does not recognize by name, would likely be a surprise and possibly an annoyance.”

Do-not-call requests run the same way in reverse. Under § 64.1200(d)(5), absent a specific request to the contrary, a residential subscriber’s request “shall apply to the particular entity making the call (or on whose behalf a call is made), and will not apply to affiliated entities unless the consumer reasonably would expect them to be included given the identification of the caller and (for telemarketing calls) the product being advertised.” For multi-brand companies, the safest course is to share opt-outs across any brand a customer could confuse with the one they told to stop.

What about texts under the Do Not Call rules?

There’s a new appellate defense this summer. In Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), the Seventh Circuit wrote: “Repeated, unwanted text messages are undoubtedly a nuisance. But they do not fall within the private right of action created by § 227(c)(5).” The decision binds courts in the Seventh Circuit only. The Ninth Circuit hasn’t ruled on the question. In Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer, LLC, No. 25-4066 (9th Cir. June 4, 2026), it let a Do Not Call class claim based on calls and texts proceed without deciding it.

Consent-portability claims and the defenses that answer them

The damages rules come from 47 U.S.C. § 227.

What to gather when a consent-portability claim arrives

The firm’s TCPA defense attorneys in California page covers how claims move from demand letter to class action. Then:

1. Preserve the original consent record, showing which entities it named, and the call and text logs for the number, under a litigation hold.
2. Export opt-out and internal do-not-call records for every brand and affiliate, with dates.
3. Pull National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and Registry versions used.
4. Collect the servicing, collection, or affiliate agreements that show who was acting for whom, plus any acquisition documents covering customer data and the messages sent.
5. Talk to a lawyer before responding to the claim, contacting the customer, or offering anything to settle.

Questions about consent across companies

Can our debt collector rely on the consent the customer gave us?

For calls about that debt, the FCC has said yes. Its 2015 ruling states that consent given to a creditor “is valid not only for calls made by the original creditor, but also for those made by a third party collector acting on behalf of that creditor.” Keep the collection agreement and the account records that tie the number to the debt, and make sure the collector’s calls stay about that account.

We bought a competitor. Can we text its customers?

Not on the competitor’s marketing consents alone, unless the consent forms name you or the deal and the circumstances make you the same seller in substance. Van Patten turned on unchanged ownership and operation. A new owner should assume it needs its own consent for automated marketing.

Does a STOP to one brand stop all our brands?

A STOP reply also revokes consent to that caller’s robocalls and robotexts under § 64.1200(a)(10), and it must be honored within ten business days. Under § 64.1200(d)(5), a do-not-call request covers affiliates when the consumer would reasonably expect it to. I’d honor a STOP across any brand with a shared name or shared customer base.

Defending claims built on borrowed consent

If your company is accused of calling or texting customers who consented to a related business, the consent language and the agreements showing who acted for whom usually decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving affiliates and acquired customer lists. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

The statute is 47 U.S.C. § 227. The FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, in the eCFR version as of July 28, 2026. The FCC orders are the 2003 Report and Order, FCC 03-153 and the 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72.

The court decisions are Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer, LLC, No. 25-4066 (9th Cir. June 4, 2026); Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026); McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025); Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025); and Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC, 847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017).

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of July 28, 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.