In February 2026, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control that sent ripples through the TCPA compliance world. The court held that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act does not require prior express written consent for telemarketing calls - that oral consent may be sufficient under the statute.
A month later, a Maryland District Court followed suit, adopting the same interpretation.
The lead generation industry’s initial reaction was predictable: celebration. If written consent is not required, the thinking goes, then the compliance burden just got lighter. No more consent forms. No more checkboxes. No more disclosure language requirements. Just get someone to say “yes” on the phone, and you are covered.
That reaction is wrong. And companies that act on it are walking into a litigation trap.
Here is what the Bradford ruling actually says, what it does not say, and why the smartest operators in the lead generation space are responding by strengthening their consent documentation, not weakening it.
What the Fifth Circuit Actually Held
The Bradford case involved telemarketing calls from a pest control company. The plaintiff argued that because the defendant could not produce a signed written consent form, it lacked the “prior express written consent” required by the TCPA for telemarketing calls.
The Fifth Circuit examined the text of the statute and the FCC’s implementing regulations. The court concluded that the TCPA itself - 47 U.S.C. Section 227 - does not explicitly require consent to be in writing for all categories of calls. The statutory text uses different consent standards for different types of communications, and the court held that oral consent satisfies the statute in certain circumstances.
The key distinction the court drew is between the statute itself and the FCC’s regulations. The FCC’s 2012 rule (47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200) established the “prior express written consent” standard for telemarketing calls. The Fifth Circuit questioned whether the FCC had the statutory authority to impose a written consent requirement that goes beyond what Congress specified in the statute.
This is a narrow, specific holding about the relationship between the statute and the FCC’s regulatory authority. It is not a declaration that consent documentation is unnecessary.
The Maryland District Court Follow-Up
In March 2026, a Maryland District Court addressed a similar question and reached the same conclusion. The court cited the Fifth Circuit’s analysis in Bradford and agreed that the TCPA’s text does not unambiguously require written consent for all telemarketing calls.
Two courts in two jurisdictions reaching the same conclusion within a month is notable. It suggests a potential trend. But a trend is not a rule, and two courts do not make a national standard.
Why This Ruling Is Less Helpful Than You Think
Before you tear up your consent forms, consider the following realities.
It Is Only Binding in the Fifth Circuit
The Fifth Circuit covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The Bradford holding is binding precedent only in those three states at the federal level. If you are sued in the Second Circuit (New York), the Ninth Circuit (California), or the Seventh Circuit (Illinois), the Bradford ruling has no binding effect.
Those circuits have not ruled on this question. And given the current state of TCPA litigation, it is only a matter of time before they do. When they do, they may disagree. A circuit split - where different federal appellate courts reach opposite conclusions on the same legal question - is a real possibility.
If you design your compliance program around the Bradford ruling and then get sued in a jurisdiction that disagrees, you have no defense.
The FCC’s Written Consent Regulation Still Exists
The Fifth Circuit questioned the FCC’s authority to impose a written consent requirement. But the FCC’s regulation - 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(2) - has not been repealed, vacated, or withdrawn. It is still on the books. The FCC has not revised its position.
Until the Supreme Court resolves the question, or the FCC amends its regulations, the written consent requirement remains enforceable in most jurisdictions. Betting your compliance program on a single circuit court’s interpretation of agency authority is a high-risk strategy.
State Laws Still Require Written Consent
Even if the federal TCPA does not require written consent (which remains an open question outside the Fifth Circuit), state telemarketing laws frequently do.
Florida’s Telephone Solicitation Act (Fla. Stat. Section 501.059) has its own consent requirements. California’s telemarketing regulations impose specific documentation obligations. The Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation Act, Washington’s commercial solicitation laws, and a growing number of state statutes create independent written consent requirements that are not affected by the Bradford ruling.
If you operate nationally - and most lead generators do - you must comply with the most restrictive applicable standard. That standard, in many states, requires written consent regardless of what the Fifth Circuit says about the federal statute.
Proving Oral Consent Is Dramatically Harder
This is the practical reality that matters most. Even if oral consent is legally sufficient under the TCPA, proving that oral consent was given is significantly more difficult than proving written consent.
Written consent creates a contemporaneous record: a specific form, seen by a specific person, at a specific time, with specific disclosure language, captured in a verifiable format. A consent certificate with a session recording, a SHA-256 hash, and a timestamp is evidence that courts have consistently accepted.
Oral consent creates… a memory. Two people’s recollections of a phone conversation, which may have occurred months or years before litigation. One party says consent was given. The other says it was not. Without a recording, you are in a credibility contest with the plaintiff. With a recording, you have better evidence - but recording calls introduces its own legal requirements under state wiretapping laws.
In Braver v. NorthStar Alarm Services and numerous other TCPA cases, courts have rejected defendants’ claims that consent was given when the defendant could not produce strong documentation. The evidentiary standard does not change just because the legal standard for the form of consent might be evolving.
Plaintiff Attorneys Already Know How to Attack Oral Consent
The TCPA plaintiff’s bar is sophisticated. They have been litigating consent issues for over a decade. The moment a defendant claims “we had oral consent,” the plaintiff’s attorney will demand:
- A recording of the consent conversation
- Call logs showing the date, time, and duration of the consent call
- The identity of the agent who obtained consent
- The specific language used to obtain consent
- Evidence that the required disclosures were made during the call
- Evidence that the consent was not coerced or misleading
If you cannot produce all of these, your oral consent defense collapses. And producing all of these is, in many ways, more burdensome than simply having a well-documented written consent form.
The Smart Response: Document More, Not Less
The companies with the strongest litigation track records are not reading Bradford as permission to reduce documentation. They are reading it as a reminder that consent evidence is the asset that matters, regardless of the legal form it takes.
Here is the logic: if written consent is required, you need bulletproof written consent documentation. If oral consent is sufficient, you still need bulletproof evidence that oral consent was given. Either way, the answer is thorough documentation.
Consent verification platforms like eConsent exist precisely for this reason. A consent certificate that captures the complete consent transaction - what the consumer saw, what they agreed to, when they agreed, and the full context of the interaction - provides evidence that holds up whether the legal standard requires written or oral consent.
Session recordings that capture the consumer’s entire interaction with a consent form create a visual record that is far more compelling than a database entry or a static screenshot. When a plaintiff claims “I never saw that disclosure,” a session recording showing them scrolling past it and checking the consent box is dispositive evidence.
The Circuit Split Is Coming
Legal analysts widely expect the Bradford interpretation to be challenged in other circuits. The question of whether the FCC exceeded its statutory authority by requiring written consent is the type of issue that generates circuit splits. When circuits disagree, the Supreme Court often grants certiorari to resolve the conflict.
This means the legal environment around consent form requirements could change significantly in the next two to three years. Companies that maintain thorough written consent documentation will be prepared regardless of outcome. Companies that abandon written consent based on Bradford may find themselves non-compliant retroactively if other circuits reject the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning.
Regulatory uncertainty is not a reason to do less. It is a reason to do more.
What About the FCC’s Position?
The FCC has not issued formal guidance in response to Bradford. The Commission’s written consent regulation remains in effect. It is possible that the FCC will respond by amending its regulations, issuing a declaratory ruling, or defending its existing rule in litigation. Each of these outcomes changes the compliance calculus differently.
What is certain is that the FCC has not abandoned the written consent standard. Until it does, treating written consent as optional based on a single circuit court ruling is a gamble.
What You Should Do Now
-
Do not change your consent collection process based on Bradford alone. The ruling is limited to the Fifth Circuit and does not reflect the legal standard in most jurisdictions. Continue collecting prior express written consent with compliant forms, clear disclosures, and documented consent events.
-
Strengthen your consent evidence infrastructure. Whether consent is written or oral, the evidence that consent was actually given is what matters in litigation. Implement consent certificates that capture the full consent transaction with tamper-evident verification. eConsent’s consent certificates are purpose-built for this.
-
Audit your consent forms for compliance across all applicable standards. Do not optimize for the most permissive interpretation. Optimize for the most restrictive standard you might face. That means compliant with the FCC’s written consent regulation, applicable state laws, and the clear-and-conspicuous requirements that courts enforce.
-
Monitor the circuit courts for follow-on rulings. If other circuits adopt the Bradford interpretation, the compliance environment shifts. If they reject it, Bradford becomes an outlier. Either way, you need to know. Subscribe to TCPA litigation tracking services and ensure your compliance team is monitoring appellate developments.
-
If you rely on oral consent for any purpose, record and document everything. If your business model involves obtaining consent over the phone, invest in compliant call recording, agent scripting, and contemporaneous logging. Oral consent without a recording is oral consent you cannot prove.
The Bradford ruling is a significant legal development. It is not a compliance holiday. The businesses that treat it as an opportunity to invest in stronger documentation will outperform those that treat it as permission to invest in less.