The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) “one-to-one” Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) consent rule (“1:1 Rule”) was a significant regulatory initiative targeting unsolicited telemarketing calls and texts. After extensive rulemaking, delay, and legal challenge, the rule was eventually vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on the basis of the FCC having exceeded its statutory authority under the TCPA by enacting it.
Although vacated and unenforceable, the 1:1 Rule remained in the official Code of Federal Regulations while the Commission considered possible revisions. However, it is clear that the 1:1 Rule is officially dead, as the FCC has officially removed the rule from its regulations.
This article will serve as an obituary for the late but unlamented 1:1 Rule, which during its brief lifetime altered the regulatory landscape for telemarketers and lead generators.
Origin and Introduction of the FCC One-to-One Consent Rule
Enacted in 1991, the TCPA requires telemarketers to obtain “prior express written consent” before making automated or prerecorded calls and texts. Over time, the FCC observed that lead generators and aggregators exploited a seeming “loophole” by collecting blanket consent for multiple sellers through a single consumer action, resulting in what the Commission viewed as unwanted communications from numerous companies.
To address this, in December of 2023 the FCC adopted the 1:1 Rule, which clarified and tightened the definition of “prior express written consent” as the term was used in the TCPA to require marketers to secure express, individualized consent for a specific seller (i.e., marketer) seeking to contact a consumer in a “clear and conspicuous” manner, allowing no single form or website checkbox to cover multiple marketers. Thus, aggregated consent for multiple entities would no longer suffice.
Moreover, the 1:1 Rule stated that marketing communications must be “logically and topically related” to the consumer’s original interaction prompting the consent, an ambiguous and confusing requirement that left many marketers uncertain as to how it would be interpreted.
The rule was set to take effect on January 27, 2025, providing the industry with just over a year for compliance and sparking a flurry of activity among lead generators, marketing firms, and compliance professionals.
Legal Challenges
The rule’s adoption was met with immediate pushback from industry groups, notably the Insurance Marketing Coalition (IMC). These challengers argued that the FCC had exceeded its statutory authority under the TCPA by redefining what constitutes “prior express consent.” They contended that the statutory language did not require individualized consent for each seller, and that the FCC’s new requirements imposed undue compliance burdens.
As the rule’s effective date approached, litigation culminated in the Eleventh Circuit case Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC. Oral arguments took place in December 2024. On January 24, 2025- just days before the rule was to become effective- the FCC issued a temporary postponement of the rule’s implementation, citing ongoing judicial review and fairness to regulated parties. Within hours, the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision, unanimously vacating the “one-to-one” consent rule, finding that that:
- The FCC’s new restrictions conflicted with the “ordinary statutory meaning” of “prior express consent” as intended by Congress and understood in common law.
- The TCPA does not mandate that consent be provided individually or restrict the relationship between a consumer’s consent and the logical topic of contact.
The Court determined that "prior express consent" only requires consumers to clearly and unmistakably consent to receive automated calls. Because the 1:1 Rule altered that meaning, the FCC had overstepped its authority to implement the TCPA.
In reaching its decision, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which curtailed judicial deference to agency interpretations, making it clear that reviewing courts must decide the scope of agency statutory interpretation independently.
The Official Demise of 1:1
With the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, the FCC One-to-One Consent Rule was vacated, and compliance requirements reverted to previous interpretations of the TCPA—meaning that consent practices established before the rule was enacted remained valid until such time as the FCC completed its review and revision of the rule to address judicial and industry concerns.
However, the FCC was silent on these efforts, if any were ever made. Now, in keeping with its recent “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative to eliminate unnecessary rules that impose undue regulatory burdens, the Commission has elected to eradicate the 1:1 Rule by silently and unceremoniously removing it from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Gone, But Not Forgotten
The 1:1 Rule, designed to close the “lead generator loophole,” was ultimately struck down before it could take effect. With its recent removal from the FCC’s regulations, the specific requirements of the 1:1 Rule are no longer a factor in lead generation campaigns.
However, unsolicited robocalls- including both legal telemarketing and illegal scam calls- remain a major source of complaints to the FCC, with U.S. consumers receiving nearly 5 billion robocalls in April 2025 alone, an increase of almost 12% over the previous year. This is a problem the FCC cannot afford to ignore, so we can certainly expect it to issue new rules and interpretations of the TCPA to address these complaints.
In the meantime, telemarketing and lead generation will continue under existing TCPA consent standards, but both industry and regulators must remain attentive to evolving legal and compliance risks in this dynamic space.
