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
The Coming State-Law Litigation Wave of 2026-27: “Subscription Trap” Class Actions
The subscription economy keeps growing—and so does the wave of class-action litigation targeting it. While the FTC’s regulatory efforts have drawn headlines, private class actions under state laws pose an even greater exposure risk.
Updates to Fees and Grace Periods for Nonimmigrant Visas
Starting September 9, 2026, the 9-11 Response Biometric Entry-Exit Fee will apply to H-1B and L-1 extension petitions filed by employers subject to the fee. Prior to the new rule, the fee was only required for (1) initial grant of status to a foreign national seeking H-1B or L-1 status and (2) a change of employer in the same status.
Third Circuit Decision Reshapes Creditor Standing in Successor Liability Disputes
The Third Circuit recently held that when determining whether a successor liability claim belongs to a bankruptcy estate, the key question is whether the claim seeks to remedy harm suffered by all creditors collectively or a unique injury suffered by a specific creditor. The fact that creditors may be permitted to bring the claim outside of bankruptcy is not, by itself, determinative.
CMS Proposes Sweeping Restrictions on Remote Patient Monitoring: The Outsourcing Ban, Reimbursement Revaluation and Potential Code Consolidation in the CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule
CMS’s CY 2027 Proposed Rule would significantly restrict Medicare reimbursement for Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) and Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM), including banning outsourced clinical staffing, adding new patient-relationship and initiating-visit requirements, reducing certain reimbursement rates, and exploring consolidation of existing billing codes.