1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Reminder: New TCPA Regulations Requiring 'Prior Express Written Consent' From Consumers Effective on October 16, 2013

Reminder: New TCPA Regulations Requiring 'Prior Express Written Consent' From Consumers Effective on October 16, 2013

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.04.13

The clock is ticking towards the deadline for complying with the new Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) regulations. In 2012, the Federal Communications Commission promulgated new rules governing the circumstances under which telemarketers can contact consumers. In less than two weeks—on October 16, 2013—the rules become effective, putting telemarketers and those companies that they act "on behalf of" at potential risk if they do not comply. As of October 16, 2013, companies that utilize mass marketing through auto-dialers, predictive dialers, and pre-records (commonly known as "telemarketing robocalls") must obtain "prior express written consent" before calling residential and mobile phones. The new rule applies to both text messages and voice calls. Prior to this change, telemarketers could contact residential lines based on an "established business relationship" with the consumer, which did not necessarily need to be documented by written agreement. The new rule eliminates the "established business relationship" exemption. Accordingly, both new and current customers must provide "prior express written consent" before receiving telemarketing robocalls. 

"Prior express written consent" requires:

  • a written agreement, signed by the individual authorizing telephone solicitations to a specific phone (agreement can be effectuated by text, e-mail, or in compliance with the E-SIGN Act), and
  • clear and conspicuous disclosure that the signed agreement is not a condition of purchasing any good or service.

The new rule also requires telemarketers to implement an interactive automated opt-out mechanism to permit consumers to opt out of receiving additional calls during a telephone solicitation. 

Failure to comply could result in stiff penalties. The TCPA permits private causes of action and provides for damages ranging from $500 to $1,500, per communication, with no cap on total damages. Class action complaints for TCPA violations are common as are settlements and judgments in the tens of millions of dollars.

Please contact us if you have questions regarding compliance with these new standards.  

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights