FCC One-to-One Consent Rule Is Gone: What Lead Forms Need

The short answer

The FCC's "one-to-one consent" rule, which would have required a separate consent for every seller that robocalls or robotexts a consumer, never took effect. The Eleventh Circuit vacated it in Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited v. FCC (decided January 24, 2025), the court's mandate issued April 30, 2025, and on July 14, 2025 the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau amended 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(9) to repeal the revised text and reinstate the earlier version. That doesn't mean "anything goes." The older definition of prior express written consent is still in the rules: a signed agreement (electronic signatures can count) that clearly authorizes the seller to deliver telemarketing messages with an autodialer or artificial or prerecorded voice, names the number, and includes a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the consumer isn't required to sign as a condition of buying anything. This post explains what changed, what didn't, and what lead buyers and sellers should check on their forms. It's general information, not legal advice.

We opened and read the Eleventh Circuit opinion (No. 24-10277) from the court's published PDF, the FCC's order DA 25-621, and the current text of 47 CFR 64.1200 from the eCFR.

What the 2023 rule would have required

In 2023 the FCC adopted two restrictions on how consent can be given for telemarketing or advertising robocalls and robotexts. According to the court:

1. One-to-one consent. A consumer couldn't give prior express consent to calls from several entities at once. One box saying "Bank A and Bank B" wouldn't count, though the court noted that two separate boxes would presumably be fine.
2. Logically and topically related. The calls had to be "logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted the consent."

The court explained why this mattered to lead generation: comparison-shopping sites collect a consumer's information, get consent to be contacted by partners, match the consumer with companies, and sell the leads to those companies.

What the court decided

The Eleventh Circuit held that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority because the restrictions conflicted with the ordinary meaning of "prior express consent" under the TCPA. On one-to-one consent, the court said that consent needs only a clear and unmistakable statement, before the call, that the consumer is willing to receive it, and that one-to-one consent isn't required. It noted that the FCC's own brief conceded a consumer could be willing to receive marketing from multiple named intermediaries. The court granted the petition, vacated Part III.D of the 2023 order (both restrictions), and remanded.

The FCC's July 2025 order says it "conforms Part 64" to the decision. It repeals the revised version of 64.1200(f)(9) and reinstates the version that existed beforehand. The order also notes the FCC had postponed the effective date of the revised rule before the mandate, so it never went into effect.

What still applies

The text of 64.1200(f)(9) today (confirmed from the eCFR) defines prior express written consent as an agreement in writing, bearing the signature of the person called, that:

• Clearly authorizes the seller to deliver, or cause to be delivered, advertisements or telemarketing messages using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice,
• States the telephone number where those messages may be delivered, and
• Includes a clear and conspicuous disclosure that (A) by signing, the person authorizes the seller to deliver telemarketing calls using an autodialer or artificial or prerecorded voice, and (B) the person isn't required to sign or agree as a condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services.

An electronic or digital signature counts if valid under federal law or state contract law.

Other rules haven't gone away either. Consent must still be revocable (see our post on the FCC opt-out rule changes), Texas has its own texting rules (see SB 140 consent and registration), and Do Not Call and email rules apply to their own channels. See Do Not Call and the TSR and CAN-SPAM.

What this does and doesn't tell you

• It doesn't say that every multi-seller checkbox is valid. The court's reasoning is that consent can cover multiple entities if the consumer clearly and unmistakably agrees. Whether your wording does that is a separate question.
• It doesn't remove the need for disclosure. The written-consent definition above is still in the rules.
• It doesn't settle other laws. State laws, other federal rules, and private lawsuits are separate. The FCC could also revisit the subject through new rulemaking. Congress has also introduced H.R. 10610, the Stop Spam Calls Act (Sept. 24, 2026, in committee), which would direct the FCC to restore the rule. It is not law.
• It isn't a verdict on any company's forms. We haven't reviewed any particular form.

A form checklist (our suggestions)

Not required by the decision, but sensible to check with your lawyer:

1. Name who may call or text. If a form covers several companies, make the list clear instead of hiding it behind a link.
2. Keep the disclosure near the button. Put it where the consumer can see it before submitting, not in fine print.
3. State that consent isn't a condition of purchase, matching the language in 64.1200(f)(9).
4. Capture proof. Save the timestamp, the form version shown, the phone number, and the consent text that was displayed.
5. Pass the consent record with the lead if you sell or buy them, so the buyer can see what the consumer agreed to.
6. Make it easy to stop. Honor "stop" and the other reasonable ways to revoke.
7. Re-check your sources. If a lead provider can't explain how consent was collected, ask before you spend.

What this post is not promising

• We aren't lawyers, and this isn't legal advice on TCPA compliance.
• We don't know how a particular court will treat a particular form.
• We don't make claims here about any lead source's compliance, and we don't guarantee outcomes for buyers.

Bottom line

The FCC's one-to-one consent requirement is gone: it was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit and then removed from the rules by the FCC. The basic written-consent definition remains, with its signature, authorization, and clear disclosure requirements. If you buy or sell leads, treat this as a reason to document consent clearly, not as permission to be vague.

Looking at lead sources? Ask about competing auto seller enquiries, or exclusive roofing and real-estate leads, through TX Lead Forge.