Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC (11th Cir. 2025)

The short version

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) "one-to-one consent" rule before it took effect. The court held that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) because the new consent restrictions conflicted with the ordinary meaning of "prior express consent" in the statute.

Background

The TCPA requires a caller to have the "prior express consent" of the called party before making certain calls using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Since 2012, FCC rules have required "prior express written consent" for such calls when they involve telemarketing or advertising.

In December 2023, the FCC adopted Second Report and Order FCC 23-107. Part III.D of that order added two restrictions for telemarketing and advertising robocalls and robotexts:

1. One-to-one consent. A consumer could consent to calls from only one seller at a time.
2. Logically and topically associated. Consent would cover only calls whose subject matter was "logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted the consent."

These restrictions were aimed in part at lead generation, where a consumer filling out one web form could end up consenting to calls from many companies. The Insurance Marketing Coalition petitioned for review of Part III.D only.

What the court decided

Judge Branch wrote the opinion for a panel that also included Judges Luck and Lagoa. The court agreed with the Insurance Marketing Coalition that "the FCC exceeded its statutory authority under the TCPA because the 2023 Order's new consent restrictions impermissibly conflict with the ordinary statutory meaning of 'prior express consent.'" It granted the petition, vacated Part III.D of the 2023 Order, and remanded. Because it decided the case on statutory authority, the court did not need to reach the coalition's First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act arguments.

What happened next

• The court issued its mandate on April 30, 2025, which vacated the rule change as of that date.
• On August 29, 2025, the FCC published a rule in the Federal Register (90 FR 42137) conforming its regulations to the decision by removing the vacated language.
• Other parts of FCC 23-107 that were not challenged, including the rule applying the Do Not Call protections to text messages in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), were not affected by the decision.
• The 2012 written-consent rule itself was not before the court. In a different case (Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc., No. 24-20379 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2026), the Fifth Circuit held that the statute requires only prior express consent, whether oral or written, for prerecorded calls. That ruling binds courts in the Fifth Circuit and does not change the FCC's rule elsewhere.

Why it matters

• Lead generation consent. Comparison-shopping and lead generation sites did not have to switch to one-to-one consent. Prior express written consent under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9) still applies to telemarketing robocalls and robotexts outside the Fifth Circuit.
• Limits on FCC rulemaking. The decision is an example of a court reading the TCPA's text for itself rather than deferring to the FCC, an approach the Supreme Court later endorsed for enforcement suits in McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson.