Is the FCC one-to-one consent rule in effect for mortgage leads

No. The FCC adopted a one-to-one consent rule for lead generators in its December 2023 order, but the rule never took effect. The Eleventh Circuit vacated it in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC on 24 January 2025, and the FCC restored the earlier text of 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(9) effective 29 August 2025. As read on 13 October 2026, the federal definition of prior express written consent does not limit a consent to one seller.

The one-to-one consent rule, date by date

The one-to-one consent rule went from an FCC vote to a court vacatur and back out of the rule book in under two years. Each date below comes from the FCC order, the court opinion or the Federal Register document itself, read on 13 October 2026.

Date	What happened
13 December 2023	The FCC adopts its Second Report and Order, FCC 23-107, with the one-to-one consent rule
26 January 2024	The order is published in the Federal Register, 89 FR 5098, with the new consent text set to start on 27 January 2025
24 January 2025	The Eleventh Circuit grants the petition in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277, and vacates the consent part of the order
30 April 2025	The court issues its mandate, and the vacatur runs from that date
14 July 2025	The FCC adopts order DA 25-621, conforming its rules to the decision
29 August 2025	That order is published, 90 FR 42137, and takes effect. The prior text of 64.1200(f)(9) is back

The FCC had postponed the 27 January 2025 start before the mandate issued. In its own words, the revised rule "had not gone into effect", so it never governed a single call or text.

Source: FCC Second Report and Order, FCC 23-107, adopted 13 December 2023, as published at 89 FR 5098 on 26 January 2024, read on federalregister.gov on 13 October 2026 for the adoption date, the 27 January 2025 effective date of the (f)(9) amendment and the one-seller text · Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, No. 24-10277, Eleventh Circuit, opinion filed 24 January 2025, read on media.ca11.uscourts.gov on 13 October 2026 for the holding and the vacatur of Part III.D · FCC order DA 25-621, adopted and released 14 July 2025, published at 90 FR 42137 on 29 August 2025, read on federalregister.gov on 13 October 2026 for the mandate date, the reinstatement of the prior (f)(9) and the effective date.

What the one-to-one rule would have required

The one-to-one rule would have let a consumer's prior express written consent authorise "no more than one identified seller". Calls and texts made on that consent would also have had to be "logically and topically associated" with the website where the consumer gave it. The FCC wrote that the requirement "applies to a single seller at a time" on comparison shopping websites.

It reached robocalls and robotexts only: telemarketing that uses an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. The court struck both halves, the one-seller limit and the logically-and-topically condition. It held that the FCC exceeded its authority under the TCPA, because both conflicted with the ordinary meaning of "prior express consent".

What still applies to a purchased mortgage lead

Prior express written consent still applies to a purchased mortgage lead. The current text of 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(9) defines it as a signed written agreement that clearly authorises "the seller" to deliver telemarketing using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice, to a stated number, after a clear and conspicuous disclosure. It says nothing about one seller at a time.

The do-not-call registry exemption at 64.1200(c)(2)(ii) was not what the court vacated. It still asks for a signed, written agreement stating that the consumer "agrees to be contacted by this seller", with the number. So consent need not name one seller at a time, and a call to a registered number still turns on a named seller. State telemarketing statutes sit on top of both, and the federal vacatur did not touch them: see mini-TCPA. How the three federal regimes fit together is in whether buying mortgage leads is legal.

Source: 47 CFR 64.1200, current text read through the eCFR renderer API on 13 October 2026, for the definition of prior express written consent at (f)(9) and the do-not-call registry exemption at (c)(2)(ii). Neither paragraph contains the one-seller or the logically-and-topically language.

What to ask a lead vendor about consent

Ask a lead vendor for the consent itself, not a summary of it. Three questions tell you whether the record would help you if a consumer disputed a call:

• Whose name is in the consent text? It should name the vendor, your company or both, in the words the consumer saw before submitting.
• Was a certificate captured on the form? A TrustedForm certificate records the session in which the consumer gave consent.
• Will the vendor pull it on request? You need it on the day a complaint arrives, so ask how you get it.

What the record has to contain, and why the caller answers for the call rather than the vendor, is in what TCPA consent on a mortgage lead is.

How our leads handle consent

On our leads the borrower gives consent on our form before submitting. The proof is a TrustedForm certificate by ActiveProspect, captured on the landing page form and pulled on request. The consent covers calls and texts. It does not cover email.

A web-form lead is also not a trigger lead, so the 2026 change in the trigger lead ban is a separate question. For the product itself, see how our purchase leads are sold and screened.

Not legal advice, and the dates matter

This page is not legal advice. The FCC rewrote its consent definition in 2023 and put the old text back in 2025, and the court remanded the question to the FCC. Read every date here as the state of the rule on 13 October 2026, and confirm the current position with your compliance counsel before you build a consent process on it.