Client Alerts & Insights
The Eleventh Circuit Scrutinizes the FCC’s One-to-One Consent Rule
January 6, 2025
Authored By:
On December 18, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument in Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., a crucial case challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) “one-to-one” consent rule. The rule, which is presently set to go into effect on January 27, 2025, adopts new consent restrictions for marketing calls that essentially curtail the ways in which consumers can consent to receive telephonic outreach from multiple companies simultaneously, commonly done through comparison shopping websites.
The one-to-one rule consists primarily of two elements: (i) it provides that “prior express written consent can only be given directly from a consumer to a single seller-caller at a time” and (ii) it requires that a consumer’s consent must be “logically and topically related” to the website on which consent is given. The one-to-one consent rule fundamentally upends the way in which myriad companies had operated and obtained consent for more than a decade, and has been hotly contested and closely watched ever since it was first promulgated.
The December 18, 2024 oral argument exposed many of the perceived weaknesses in the FCC’s rule. One member of the Court expressed concern about the statutory bases for the rule and the logic behind it—namely, how the FCC could restrict a consumer’s ability to expressly consent. Skepticism was likewise expressed toward the FCC’s rationale that additional consumer protection was needed to prevent consumers from unintentionally consenting.
Some action—be it a stay or a ruling—could be forthcoming in relative short order. While many companies have taken steps to prepare for the upcoming one-to-one effective date, it is critical to remember that this situation remains fluid. It will be important to consult with counsel once the Eleventh Circuit acts.
Mark Eisen is a Partner and Co-Chair of Benesch’s Privacy Litigation & Compliance Group. He can be reached at 312.212.4956 or meisen@beneschlaw.com.
David Krueger is a Partner and Co-Chair of Benesch’s Privacy Litigation & Compliance Group. He can be reached at 216.363.4683 or dkrueger@beneschlaw.com.
Ruddy Abam is a Managing Associate in the Litigation Practice Group. She can be reached at 312.212.4949 or rabam@beneschlaw.com.
Latest News
Ohio Governor Appoints Andy Wilson as Attorney General: New Leadership, New Opportunities
Ohio has a new Attorney General—Andy Wilson—appointed to serve through January 2027, bringing a law enforcement–focused background and signaling continuity in protecting consumers and supporting public safety priorities.
IEEPA Tariff Refunds Challenged in Court – Q&A for Supply Chains
Many of our clients have filed declarations to receive International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) tariff refunds for “Phase 1” of the new refund process. Some have already received those funds. Recent Department of Justice (“DOJ”) actions between June 2 and June 9, 2026, raise questions about the viability of this administrative process for duty refunds beyond those allowed in Phase 1.
Versata v. Ford: Federal Circuit Reinstates $82M Award and Opens Door to Even Greater Damages
Recently, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Michigan’s ruling that Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) misappropriated Versata Software Inc.’s (“Versata”) trade secrets and breached a software licensing agreement. The three-judge panel ordered a new trial on trade secret damages, finding that the lower court improperly limited available damages theories, and reinstated the jury’s $82.3 million award from Ford’s breach of the software licensing agreement.
UPDATED: The Faster Labor Contracts Act Would Permit Federal Government to Impose Union Contract Terms on Employers
The federal government may soon be able to impose the terms of first collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) on private sector employers and unions.