FCC one-to-one consent rule for Lead generators

This page makes a brief overview of the rule and provides links for further reading.

It should be noted that we are not lawyers. We try to help with the understanding of the rules, but you should definitely read them yourself and contact a lawyer for further discussions and implementations.

Source

Original rule could be found at: FCC Closes 'Lead Generator' Robocall Loophole & Adopts Robotext Rules.

PDF document: FCC-23-107A1.pdf

Take a look at page 51 for the rule. Explanations and reasoning are provided on pages 12 to 23, section D.

(f)(9) The term prior express written consent means an agreement, in writing, that bears the signature of
the person called or texted that clearly and conspicuously authorizes no more than one identified seller to
deliver or cause to be delivered to the person called or texted advertisements or telemarketing messages
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Calls and texts must be
logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted the consent and the agreement must
identify the telephone number to which the signatory authorizes such advertisements or telemarketing
messages to be delivered.

FCC comments and explanations (cherry-picked by us)

Here are a few specific comments that we found interesting with the source document.

  1. Page 12, Section D, Point 30: 
    We also make it unequivocally clear that this requirement applies a single seller at a time, on the comparison shopping websites that often are the
  2. Page 13, Section D, Point 31:

    FCC seems to be trying to address robocalls and robotexts

    One-to-One Consent. As an initial matter, we agree with the several commenters,
including consumer groups, State Attorneys General, and members of Congress that we must take
action to close the lead generator loophole and stop consent abuse by unscrupulous robotexters and
robocallers. We agree with the Joint Consumer Commenters, who argue that the “resale of consumer
data by lead generators and lead aggregators significantly contributes to the problem of illegal calls.”

We agree with commenters that requiring one-to-one consent obtained with a clear and conspicuous
disclosure to the consumer is the way to close this loophole.74 Unequivocally requiring one-to-one
consent will end the current practice of consumers receiving robocalls and robotexts from tens, or
hundreds, of sellers—numbers that most reasonable consumers would not expect to receive.
  3. Page 18, Section D, Point 39:

    It seems that if there are no robotcalls involved a buyer could still reach out to a customer, probably manually, without the use of robocalling and could then seek consent for robotcalling.

    Our rule does not restrain comparison shopping, nor does it unnecessarily constrain a
businesses’ ability to rely on leads purchased from lead generators. For example, consumers may
reach out to multiple businesses themselves or ask to be contacted only by businesses through means
other than robocalling and robotexting. Further, sellers may avail themselves of other options for
providing comparison shopping information to consumers. They may initiate calls or texts
consumers without using an autodialer or prerecorded or artificial voice messages. They may use
email or postal mail, both to provide information and to solicit further one-to-one consent to robocall or
robotext. Nothing in our rule restricts the ability of businesses, including small businesses, from relying
on leads generated by third party lead generators.