One-to-one Consent Overturned: How the Landmark Decision Impacts Businesses

Friday, January 24, 2025, was a pivotal day in telemarketing compliance. For over a year, the terms “one-to-one consent” and “logically and topically related” dominated industry discussions following the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) new proposed rule further implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). However, at the 11th hour of the last business day before the rule was set to take effect on January 27th, everything came to a crashing halt.

First, late on the afternoon of the 24th, the FCC issued a stay on the implementation of its own rule. Then, within minutes and in no less dramatic fashion, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the rule entirely, declaring it beyond the FCC’s statutory authority.

One-to-one Consent Background

As a brief background, in December 2023, the FCC proposed amending its previous “prior express written consent” (the TCPA only requires “prior express consent”) definition required for marketing-related robocalls and robotexts (or those calls and texts placed by automated systems or prerecorded voice) by imposing two additional requirements:

1. Consent must be specific to one identified seller at a time, and
2. Consent must be logically and topically related to the purpose for which the consent was obtained.

The FCC’s intent was to close a perceived “loophole” that allowed any number of businesses—oftentimes buried in long lists of hundreds of unrelated entities—to call or text consumers based on a single consent. The FCC saw this new rule as a way to significantly reduce the number of unwanted phone calls consumers complain about. (An often overlooked issue here is that the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly defined what constitutes an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) in its 2021 Facebook v. Duguid decision, thereby eliminating many systems and calls from the scope of the rule in the first place, but more on this later.)

Legal Challenge and the 11th Circuit’s Decision

The Insurance Marketing Coalition (IMC), a trade and advocacy organization within the insurance industry, quickly challenged the rule by filing a petition with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, generally claiming the FCC exceeded its authority by redefining “prior express consent” to require individual consent, which conflicts with the ordinary meaning of the term.

During oral arguments on December 18, 2025, the three-judge panel appeared sympathetic to IMC’s position. Ultimately, the Court analyzed the TCPA’s “prior express consent” language against principles of common law (since the TCPA does not define the term) to assess whether the FCC’s changes aligned with the plain meaning of “prior express consent.”

1. One-to-One Consent. The court ruled that the one-to-one consent requirement conflicted with the TCPA’s ordinary meaning of “prior express consent” and found that consent need only be “clear and unmistakable.” Restricting consent to a single seller added an unnecessary and unauthorized restriction.
2. Logical and Topical Connection. The court also struck down the requirement that consent be tied to the subject matter of the original interaction. Instead, it clarified that what matters is whether the consumer clearly agreed to receive communications—regardless of whether the business contacting them is logically and topically related to their initial inquiry. The decision emphasized consumer choice, allowing individuals to opt in to communications from businesses of their choosing, even if not directly connected to their original interest.

What’s Next?

The FCC could appeal the ruling but is unlikely to do so. The FCC could also propose a revised rule that aligns more closely with the Court’s reasoning and is more likely to be considered within the scope of its authority. However, with the growing attention on telemarketing regulations, Congress may act instead by providing specific definitions. Approximately a year ago, Congress introduced legislation to do just that with the Do Not Disturb Act, but it stalled. With the new composition of Congress, including Senate Majority leader John Thune, who is no stranger to teleservices matters after cosponsoring the TRACED Act, the Do Not Disturb Act or a similar bill could gain momentum.

Business Implications: Compliance Still Matters

While the Court’s ruling ends the FCC’s “one-to-one consent” and “logically and topically related” requirements, it does not validate broad or deceptive consent practices. Your business should still be clearly and conspicuously named in the consent language.

Clear and Conspicuous is still the standard. The Court referenced “clear and unmistakable” several times in its opinion, and these are the standards that courts generally apply. Express written consent should:

• Indicate affirmative agreement, including an unchecked box, if used,
• Name your business as the—or a—seller,
• Reference the consumer’s provided phone number,
• Identify the marketing nature of authorized calls, texts, prerecorded messages, and AI,
• Calls and texts will or may be made with automated technology, and
• Include a statement/acknowledgment that consent is not a condition of purchasing goods or services.

Best standards include ensuring consent language appears:

• Immediately adjacent to the lead form above the action button (e.g., “Submit”). Courts generally favor above-the-button disclosures.
• In the same font size, color, and contrast with the background as the surrounding non-disclosure language.
• Unbundled with consent for other things such as a privacy policy or terms and conditions. These links can and should be provided but not as part of consent to be contacted.
• Without extraneous and unnecessary language, to maintain clarity and enforceability.

Conclusion

The “one-to-one consent” and “logically and topically related” requirements are no longer in place. But with the heightened attention to contact consent, this is not the time for businesses to let their guards down. Callers should still ensure they’re being identified clearly and conspicuously in consent language. If buying leads from third parties, businesses should ensure they know what their leads’ experiences were like when filling out the form and ensure the consumers will not be surprised to hear from them.

For businesses seeking guidance, CompliancePoint offers evaluations of lead forms and expert consultation to help navigate TCPA compliance effectively. Reach out to us at connect@compliancepoint.com to learn more about our services.