Prior express written consent

Prior express written consent is the permission a consumer signs before a business may call or text that person's mobile number with an autodialer or a prerecorded voice. The Federal Communications Commission defines it at 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(9). On a lead invoice it is the item you are actually paying for, because the record without it is a phone number you cannot legally dial.

What the signed agreement has to contain

The rule asks for an agreement, in writing, bearing the signature of the person called. That agreement must clearly authorize the seller to deliver, or cause to be delivered, advertisements or telemarketing messages using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. It must also state the telephone number the signer is authorizing those messages to reach. A bare checkbox next to the word submit is none of that.

The disclosure the form must carry

Subparagraph (f)(9)(i) adds a clear and conspicuous disclosure with two halves. It must tell the person signing that executing the agreement authorizes the seller to deliver telemarketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. It must also tell them they are not required to sign, directly or indirectly, as a condition of purchasing any property, goods or services. Forms usually print the first half and drop the second.

Why an electronic signature qualifies

Subparagraph (f)(9)(ii) says the term signature includes an electronic or digital form of signature, to the extent that form is recognized as a valid signature under applicable federal law or state contract law. The rule does not name a statute. The federal law that supplies the recognition is the E-SIGN Act, 15 U.S.C. 7001(a). So a web form can produce real consent, and the wording beside the box is what decides it.

Naming the seller, and the rule a court struck down

The definition authorizes the seller, singular, and 64.1200(f)(10) defines a seller as the entity on whose behalf the call is initiated. The form therefore has to make the authorized business identifiable. The FCC went further in 2023 and required one consent per seller. A federal appeals court vacated that rule on 24 January 2025, so a single form naming several businesses is not void on that ground alone.

Who is liable for the call

47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) makes it unlawful for a person to make a call to a mobile number using an autodialer or a prerecorded voice without the required consent. The duty attaches to whoever dials, not to whoever sold the record. Under 227(b)(3) the person called may recover $500 for each violation, and a court may raise that to as much as three times the amount for a willful or knowing violation.

One thing a buyer would want here does not exist. A provision letting a caller rely on consent documentation gathered by a third party was looked for across 47 CFR 64.1200 and is not in it. The section's only safe harbor, at 64.1200(c)(2)(i), excuses a do-not-call registry error and demands the caller's own written procedures, its own training and its own scrubbing process. Buying a record moves the paperwork. It does not move the duty, which is why reading the consent language a vendor actually used is a buying step and not a legal formality.

Sources: Telephone Consumer Protection Act rules, 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(9), (f)(9)(i), (f)(9)(ii), (f)(10), (a)(10) and (c)(2)(i), text read 20 September 2026 at law.cornell.edu and cross-checked against the GPO CFR XML at govinfo.gov · 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 227(b)(3) · Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. 7001(a) · Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir., 24 January 2025), vacating the one-to-one consent rule.