The Federal Communications Fee is pushing the Phone Client Safety Act’s one-to-one consent requirement to subsequent yr, as a consequence of an appeals courtroom ruling questioning the FCC’s definition of prior specific consent.
Flip up the amount on actual property success at Inman On Tour: Nashville! Join with business trailblazers and top-tier audio system to achieve highly effective insights, cutting-edge methods, and invaluable connections. Elevate your small business and obtain your boldest targets — all with Music Metropolis magic. Register now.
The Federal Communications Fee is delaying the Phone Client Safety Act (TCPA)’s one-to-one consent requirement till 2026, because of a courtroom ruling towards the fee on Friday.
TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY FOR JANUARY
The U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dominated in favor of the Insurance coverage Advertising and marketing Coalition (IMC), which filed a petition in 2024 towards the FCC over the TCPA’s prior specific consent necessities.
Within the Act, the FCC requires entrepreneurs to get specific written consent from shoppers earlier than calling, texting, or utilizing auto-dialers to ship a prerecorded message. The FCC additionally axed the thought of broad consent for these calls, with the Act noting that buyers should present written consent for every firm that desires to contact them. As soon as a client provides consent to an organization, the TCPA additionally says any future calls, texts, or automated messages should be “logically and topically” associated to the unique cause they consented.
The IMC argued the FCC’s prior specific consent requirement “improperly differentiated” between telemarketing and promoting calls and non-telemarketing and non-advertising calls. The IMC additionally mentioned the TCPA’s definition of prior specific consent conflicts with the longstanding utility of the rule and provides conflicting steering on the requirement that each one calls to a client should be “logically and topically” associated.
“By this Order, we postpone the effective date for revisions to the [Second Text Blocking Report and Order] of the Commission’s rules by 12 months, to January 26, 2026, or until the date specified in a Public Notice following a decision from the court reviewing a challenge to the new rule on the petition filed by the Insurance Marketing Coalition (IMC), whichever is sooner,” Client and Governmental Affairs Bureau Appearing Chief Eduard W. Bartholme III mentioned in an order on Friday. “We take this action pursuant to our authority under section 10(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act because we find that justice requires postponement of the effective date pending judicial review of the adopted rule.”
“Particularly given the advanced stage of the pending judicial proceeding, it is in the interest of justice to provide a limited postponement of the effective date of the rule to avoid imposing new burdens on parties while the court is adjudicating IMC’s challenge to the rule and to avoid subjecting texters and callers acting in good faith to the risk of having to defend themselves against private suits seeking statutory damages for a period in which the rule is still undergoing judicial review,” he added. “Further, we find that providing additional time may facilitate the industry’s compliance with the rule if the court upholds it.”
“After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we agree with IMC 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,’” courtroom paperwork learn. “Accordingly, we grant IMC’s petition for review, vacate Part III.D of the 2023 Order, and remand for further proceedings.”
Though the FCC is holding off on the one-to-one consent requirement, that doesn’t imply firms are off the hook.
They’ll nonetheless must get specific written consent and supply a “clear and conspicuous” disclosure for robocalls and robotexts — or face steep penalties. In 2023, Keller Williams paid $40 million to settle a chilly name class motion lawsuit that claimed the franchisor’s brokers made unsolicited calls to shoppers, together with these on the nationwide Do Not Name checklist.
