According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month. Not only that, but everything except filings under the FDCPA were up over 2024.
Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order extending the effective date of certain parts of § 64.1200(a)(10) of its rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) to April 11, 2026.
Last month, we discussed the motion filed by the National Consumers League and four small business owners to intervene in the case of Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited. v. FCC. This motion aimed to challenge the Eleventh Circuit panel’s decision that vacated the FCC’s 2023 Order, known as the One-to-One Rule. Last week, the District of Columbia, along with 27 states, filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for rehearing en banc.
On February 19, the National Consumers League (NCL) and four small business owners filed a motion to intervene in support of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the United States in the case of Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC. This motion seeks to challenge the panel’s January 24, 2025 decision that vacated the FCC’s 2023 Order, known as the One-to-One Rule.
On February 4, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed a $4,492,500 fine against Telnyx LLC for allegedly allowing illegal robocalls on its network. The FCC’s Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) serves as a formal notification of the apparent violations and the proposed monetary penalty. It is not a final Commission action. Telnyx will have the opportunity to respond to the allegations, submit evidence, and present legal arguments before the FCC makes a final determination.
In Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 289152 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit came to the rescue of the lead generation industry, striking down new regulations that were set to go into effect on January 27. Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, sellers and telemarketers are prohibited from making certain telemarketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or artificial or prerecorded voice messages without “prior express consent.” On December 18, 2023, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order adopting rules aimed at closing what it termed the “lead generator loophole” (2023 order). The FCC objected to lead generators using a single webform to obtain prior express written consent for a list of marketing partners. The FCC also objected to webforms that obtained broad consent for marketing calls about a wide-range of products and services. The 2023 order adopted a new definition of “prior express written consent” that would have prohibited consumers from giving consent to receive marketing calls from more than one company at a time or about products and services that were not “logically and topically associated with” those promoted on the website. The Eleventh Circuit held that the FCC exceeded its authority under the TCPA because the consent restrictions conflicted with the ordinary meaning of “prior express consent.” This decision is consistent with the recent shift in the willingness of federal courts to review administrative decisions after the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024).
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion denying class certification in a case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) finding common issues did not predominate the individual inquires. The decision further clarified the application and constitutionality of the statute to unsolicited fax advertisements.
In a previous post, we discussed the oral arguments held on December 18, 2024, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the case of Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited (IMC) v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The case challenged the FCC’s December 2023 order under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which aimed to reduce unwanted robocalls and texts by closing the “lead generator loophole” and requiring “one-to-one consent” for telemarketing communications. The new rule was set to take effect on January 27, 2025. However, during oral arguments, the Eleventh Circuit judges expressed skepticism about the FCC’s justification for its new rule.
On January 21, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation. As discussed here, the primary issue is whether the Hobbs Act, which limits judicial review of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “final orders” to appellate courts, requires district courts to accept the FCC legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). While the Supreme Court previously addressed whether the Hobbs Act applied in private litigation, it ultimately did not resolve whether a district court is required to follow a particular FCC order interpreting the TCPA.
On December 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held oral arguments in Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited (IMC) v. Federal Communication Commission (FCC), which challenges the FCC’s December 2023 order under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The stated aim of the order is to reduce unwanted robocalls and texts by closing the “lead generator loophole,” and require “one-to-one consent” for telemarketing communications. The new rule is set to take effect next month. However, during oral arguments, the Eleventh Circuit judges expressed skepticism about the FCC’s justification for its new rule.