Short answer: Not yet, and not from the FCC. On September 24, 2026 Representative Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) and five co-sponsors, including Representative Jefferson Shreve (R-Ind.), introduced H.R. 10610, the Stop Spam Calls Act. It would direct the FCC to restore the one-to-one consent rule that the Eleventh Circuit vacated in January 2025. As of October 17, 2026 the bill has been introduced and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and nothing else: no hearing, no markup, no floor vote. The FCC’s most recent TCPA order, FCC 26-67, does not mention one-to-one consent.
What was the one-to-one consent rule?
In December 2023 the FCC amended the definition of prior express written consent in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9). As the Eleventh Circuit described it, the rule said a consumer cannot consent to telemarketing or advertising robocalls unless “(1) he consents to calls from only one entity at a time, and (2) he consents only to calls whose subject matter is ‘logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted the consent.’” A single checkbox covering “Bank A and Bank B” would no longer have worked.
The rule was due to take effect January 27, 2025. Three days earlier, in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277, the Eleventh Circuit vacated it, holding that “the 2023 Order’s new consent restrictions impermissibly conflict with the ordinary statutory meaning of ‘prior express consent.’” The FCC removed the language from its rules in DA 25-621 (July 14, 2025). It never took effect.
What would H.R. 10610 do?
The bill is two pages. Section 2 says:
- (a) Revision. Within one year of enactment, “the Federal Communications Commission shall revise section 64.1200(f)(9) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations … to have such section read as such section appears (as revised) in the final rule … published on January 26, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 5098).” That is the vacated one-to-one text.
- (b) Applicability. The restored definition “shall take effect beginning on the date that is 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.”
- (c) Rule of construction. Nothing in the section suggests the FCC lacked authority, before enactment, “to require that prior express consent be in writing.”
Subsection (c) answers a different court decision. In February 2026 the Fifth Circuit held in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, No. 24-20379, that “contrary to the FCC’s regulation, Congress permits either written or oral consent for any auto-dialed or pre-recorded call.” The bill tries to protect the written-consent requirement from that line of reasoning. (We covered Bradford in Written Consent Not Required?)
Co-sponsor Shreve put the bill’s purpose this way in the sponsor’s press release: “Giving one company permission to call you shouldn’t open the door to calls from countless others.” Consumer groups including the National Consumer Law Center and the Consumer Federation of America endorsed it.
Where does the bill stand?
| Step | Status (Oct. 17, 2026) |
|---|---|
| Introduced in the House | Sept. 24, 2026 |
| Referred to Energy and Commerce | Sept. 24, 2026 |
| Co-sponsors | 7: Shreve (R-Ind.), Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Carson (D-Ind.), Whitesides (D-Calif.), Mannion (D-N.Y.), Meuser (R-Pa.), Mackenzie (R-Pa.) |
| Committee hearing or markup | None |
| House or Senate vote | None |
| Senate companion bill | None found |
Some industry commentary in early October described the bill as having reached the House floor. The congressional record shows only introduction and referral. Most bills referred to committee never get a vote, and the 119th Congress ends in January 2027, when unpassed bills expire. A bipartisan sponsor list makes it worth watching, not a law in waiting.
Is the FCC bringing one-to-one back?
We found no sign of it. FCC 26-67, adopted September 30, 2026, deals with revocation of consent. Its Further Notice asks about revocation deadlines, two-way texting, a revoke-all option and how revocations apply across a company’s own affiliates. It does not discuss consent to multiple sellers or lead generators. The order also delegates a plain-language rewrite of § 64.1200 to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, but states that “substantive changes to these rules are excluded from this delegation of authority.”
The Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning also limits the FCC: it held the one-to-one rule conflicts with the statute. An Act of Congress directing the rule, as H.R. 10610 would, is the route that avoids that problem, which is why the bill matters more than any FCC statement would.
Should lead generators prepare anyway?
Yes, for reasons that do not depend on the bill:
- Buyers already value it. A lead where the consumer named the buyer is easier to defend than one covered by a partner list. In Hossfeld v. Allstate (7th Cir. 2026) the lead list claimed consent for a number that belonged to someone else; see Three 2026 Appeals Rulings Every Lead Buyer Should Read.
- Courts still ask whether the consumer agreed to this caller. Without the rule, a long partner list remains a litigation risk: plaintiffs argue the consumer could not have agreed to hundreds of sellers at once.
- The rule’s 18-month runway would be short. If H.R. 10610 passed, forms, consent records and lead routing would need to change within 18 months of enactment. Building per-seller consent capture now spreads that work out.
What to keep, per lead, so you can switch either way:
- The exact disclosure text the consumer saw, including every seller named.
- Which seller or sellers the consumer selected, if your form offers a choice.
- The page, time and session in which consent was given, so a buyer can confirm the consumer, not a list vendor, typed the number.
- Which buyer received the lead, so consent can be matched to the company that called.
eConsent certificates record the disclosure and the consumer’s interaction with the form, and Partner Certificates carry that record to the buyer.
Sources
- H.R. 10610, Stop Spam Calls Act, 119th Congress (introduced Sept. 24, 2026): govinfo.gov text, bill status
- Rep. Subramanyam press release (Sept. 24, 2026): subramanyam.house.gov
- Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025): ca11.uscourts.gov
- DA 25-621 (FCC, July 14, 2025): docs.fcc.gov
- Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc., No. 24-20379 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2026): ca5.uscourts.gov
- FCC 26-67 (Sept. 30, 2026): docs.fcc.gov
This article is general information, not legal advice. Talk to TCPA counsel about your own program.