TrustPilot

TCPA “Written Consent” Requirement Takes Another Hit: Courts Push Back on FCC Authority

Another major crack just formed in the FCC’s “prior express written consent” framework—and this time, it’s not just a one-off ruling.

In its recent analysis, Squire Patton Boggs highlights what it calls “Strike Two” against the FCC’s long-standing requirement that telemarketing robocalls require prior express written consent.

The underlying case, Bradley v. DentalPlans.com, is particularly important because it builds directly on the momentum from the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control.

Here’s what changed:

After the Supreme Court’s decisions in Loper Bright and McLaughlin, courts are no longer required to defer to FCC interpretations of the TCPA. Instead, they must interpret the statute independently.

And when courts actually look at the statute?

They’re finding something very different from what the FCC imposed.

➡️ The TCPA requires “prior express consent”—not “prior express written consent”
➡️ The statute itself does not distinguish between oral and written consent
➡️ Courts are increasingly rejecting the FCC’s added “written” requirement as beyond its authority

In Bradley, that shift had real consequences.

The court reconsidered its earlier position, decertified the class, and reopened the analysis under the correct statutory standard—one that does not automatically require written consent.

This is now part of a broader trend:

Courts are moving away from decades of FCC-driven interpretation and returning to the plain language of the TCPA.

But here’s the catch—this doesn’t simplify compliance.

It complicates it.

Because now:

• Different courts may apply different consent standards
• FCC rules are no longer automatically controlling
• Plaintiffs can no longer rely on “no written consent” as a shortcut to liability

That’s exactly where most compliance programs break down.

Static rules don’t work in a shifting legal environment.

You need real-time compliance intelligence—the ability to identify risk patterns, plaintiff behavior, and exposure signals before they turn into litigation.

Because in today’s TCPA landscape, the risk isn’t just what the rule says—

…it’s how the next court decides to interpret it.

#TCPA #FCC #TelemarketingCompliance #Robocalls #LegalTech #Compliance #ClassAction #ConsumerProtection #MarketingCompliance #TCPALitigatorList

Latest TCPA Litigation Update + Why Scrubbing Matters

A recent development in the TCPA world highlights just how critical it is to stay ahead of
litigation risk. In Bianca Johnston v. Bur Bur Care LLC (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026), a case brought
by one of the most prolific TCPA attorneys, Jibreal Hindi, was dismissed for failure to prosecute
after the plaintiff’s counsel did not follow local rules to move the case forward.

The court issued an order to show cause that went unanswered, resulting in dismissal (without
prejudice). While dismissals like this are uncommon, they illustrate an important reality: high-
volume TCPA litigation is unpredictable — even for seasoned plaintiff firms.

For businesses that rely on outbound calling or texting, this reinforces a key lesson: reactive
compliance is not enough. Proactive risk mitigation matters.

🔍 How TCPA Litigator List Helps

At TCPALitigatorList.com, we provide one of the most comprehensive TCPA risk-mitigation
resources available to businesses engaged in phone and SMS outreach.

• A continually expanding database of 600,000+ phone numbers associated with TCPA
litigators, attorneys, professional plaintiffs, and repeat filers

• Flexible tools to scrub calling and texting lists via file upload or API integration before
campaigns go live

• Ongoing updates so compliance teams stay informed as new high-risk numbers enter the
ecosystem

While no compliance tool can eliminate TCPA exposure entirely, identifying known litigators
before contact adds an important defensive layer — beyond basic consent records and DNC
checks alone.

In today’s enforcement climate, smart compliance isn’t just about rules — it’s about risk
intelligence.

If your organization conducts outbound calling or messaging, TCPA Litigator List can help you
reduce unnecessary legal exposure before it turns into a lawsuit.

Major TCPA Development: Fifth Circuit Says Written Consent Is Not Required for Telemarketing Calls

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is creating significant discussion in the telemarketing and compliance world.

In Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of Texas, the Fifth Circuit held that the TCPA does not require “prior express written consent” for telemarketing calls using prerecorded or automated voice messages. Instead, the statute requires only “prior express consent,” which can be given either orally or in writing.

This interpretation directly challenges the stricter regulatory interpretation that has often been applied by the FCC and in TCPA litigation.

The court emphasized that the TCPA statute itself allows calls when the called party has given prior express consent, and the law does not explicitly require that consent to be in written form.

Why This Matters for Businesses
For companies engaged in outbound calling, this ruling could influence how courts analyze consent in TCPA cases — particularly in jurisdictions within the Fifth Circuit.
However, businesses should not assume this eliminates risk.

TCPA litigation remains active, and plaintiffs continue to target companies over consent disputes, call practices, and compliance gaps. Even when consent exists, serial TCPA litigators and demand-letter senders often look for technical vulnerabilities to file claims.

The Reality of Modern TCPA Risk

Many professional TCPA plaintiffs frequently rotate phone numbers or use prepaid and reassigned lines, making traditional phone-number scrubbing incomplete.

That’s why compliance strategies increasingly require identity-based risk detection in addition to number-based screening.

TCPALitigatorList.com addresses this challenge with its proprietary Name Recognition Algorithm (NRA), which identifies known TCPA litigators by name — helping detect risk even when phone numbers change or are unregistered.

The platform allows companies to:
• Scrub call lists against known TCPA litigators
• Identify individuals associated with previous lawsuits or demand letters
• Use API integrations for real-time compliance screening
• Reduce exposure to costly TCPA litigation
Bottom Line
Court decisions may shift interpretations of consent — but TCPA risk is still very real.

The smartest compliance programs combine legal awareness, proactive data screening, and advanced risk detection tools to prevent problems before a call is ever made.


#TCPA
#TCPACompliance
#RiskManagement
#CallCenterCompliance
#SMSCompliance
#TCPALitigatorList

#LitigationRisk
#TelemarketingCompliance