Back From the Dead? Congress Seeks to Restore One-to-One TCPA Consent

A newly introduced House bill, the Stop Spam Calls Act (H.R. 10610), would direct the FCC to restore the agency’s 2024 “one-to-one” consent standard for robocalls and robotexts. If enacted, the measure would sharply limit the use of broad multi-seller consent disclosures that many lead generators and downstream marketers currently use.

Understanding H.R. 10610

Representatives Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) and Jefferson Shreve (R-IN) introduced H.R. 10610 on September 24, 2026. The bill was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and has not advanced beyond the introductory stage.  

The bill would require the FCC, within one year after enactment, to revise the definition of “prior express written consent” in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9) so that it conforms to the consent definition adopted in the FCC’s January 2024 TCPA order. The revised rule would take effect 18 months after the bill becomes law.  In practical terms, H.R. 10610 would seek to restore two limitations on lead-generation consent:

(1) Consent would be limited to calls or texts from only one identified seller.

(2) The resulting communications would need to be logically and topically associated with the website interaction that prompted the consumer’s consent.

The bill also includes a rule of construction providing that it should not be interpreted to suggest that the FCC previously lacked authority to require prior express written consent under Section 64.1200 or a successor rule.

Current FCC Baseline

The operative version of 47 CFR §64.1200(f)(9)  defines prior express written consent as a signed written agreement that clearly authorizes the seller to deliver, or cause delivery of, telemarketing or advertising messages using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice, at the identified telephone number.

That definition requires consent to be clear and seller-specific enough to support the particular seller’s communications, but it does not currently limit a single consent event to only one seller. Accordingly, a consent form may identify multiple sellers, subject to the continuing requirements that the disclosures be clear and conspicuous and that the consent record establish the consumer’s affirmative agreement to receive the covered communications.

The difference matters most in lead-generation models. A comparison-shopping website can presently seek TCPA consent for communications from multiple identified providers, rather than obtain a separate consent action for each provider. The bill is intended to eliminate that approach.

The FCC’s 2024 One-to-One Consent Rule

In December 2023, the FCC adopted amendments to the TCPA consent rules in its Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful Text Messages order. The agency’s revised definition of prior express written consent would have required that consent authorize no more than one identified seller to send telemarketing calls or texts.

The FCC also required the consent to be obtained in a context that was logically and topically related to the interaction giving rise to the consent. The rule targeted lead-generation websites that used a single checkbox to obtain consent for a large and potentially shifting group of “marketing partners,” whose identities might be disclosed only through hyperlinks or obscure list pages.

The rule was scheduled to become effective on January 27, 2025. It did not take effect because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the one-to-one consent rule in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCCbefore that effective date.

Why the FCC One-to-One Rule Failed

The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority by imposing the one-to-one consent and logically/topically related requirements. The court reasoned that the TCPA’s text requires prior express consent of the called party but does not authorize the agency to dictate that a consumer may consent to contact by only one seller at a time.

The court’s ruling did not eliminate the statutory or regulatory requirement for prior express written consent for covered telemarketing communications. It instead invalidated the FCC’s additional limits on how many sellers could be covered by one consent transaction and how closely the marketing must relate to the consumer’s initial online inquiry. The former version of Section 64.1200(f)(9), which refers to authorization by “the seller,” remains operative.

Operational Impact

If enacted, H.R. 10610 would change the economics and design of multi-seller lead generation. A consumer’s consent to hear from one home-services provider, insurer, debt-relief company, or education vendor could not be used to support calls or texts from a roster of additional providers merely because they appeared on the same landing page or partner list.

Businesses that purchase leads would need to confirm that the specific buyer was the sole seller named in the applicable consent event. Lead generators would likely have to implement seller-specific consent flows, potentially using a separate affirmative action, individualized disclosure, or sequential consent process for each participating seller.

Even if the bill does not pass, the current rule should not be read as authorizing vague consent language. Generic references to “partners,” “affiliates,” or “marketing partners” continue to create substantial consent-proof risk where the consumer cannot reasonably identify the seller that later calls or texts. The existing regulation still requires a written agreement that clearly authorizes the seller’s covered communications.

Likely Legislative Fate

The bill has bipartisan principal sponsorship, which gives it a better political narrative than a purely partisan TCPA proposal: Representative Subramanyam is a Democrat and Representative Shreve is a Republican. It was also introduced with additional cosponsors, including Representatives Raja Krishnamoorthi, André Carson, George Whitesides, and John Mannion.

But its near-term legislative prospects appear limited. H.R. 10610 was introduced late in the 119th Congress and has only been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee; there is no indication in the available legislative record of a committee markup, report, House floor consideration, companion Senate bill, or movement toward enactment.

The bill also seeks a congressional override of an appellate decision that found the FCC lacked statutory authority to impose the very restrictions Congress is now being asked to mandate. That makes enactment legally straightforward if Congress chooses to act, but politically more demanding: supporters must build enough consensus not merely to condemn illegal robocalls, but to impose a structural restriction on legitimate lead-generation and customer-acquisition practices.

A more realistic near-term outcome is that H.R. 10610 serves as a policy marker and potential vehicle for future consumer-protection negotiations, rather than becoming law in its introduced form before the end of the current Congress. Companies should monitor the bill but should not redesign existing consent flows solely because of its introduction.

‍