Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control Changes Definition of Consent for Robocalls

by Rrita Osmani and Jenna Leslie

On February 25, 2026, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Sovereign Pest Control – holding that providing a telephone number constituted “prior express consent,” to receive automated calls and texts.  This new ruling may change previously understood definitions of consent for telephone solicitations.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits unwanted robocalls and telemarketing texts and calls in the United States.  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) oversees enforcement of the ban and has provided its own guidance for businesses and consumers.  Traditionally, the FCC has restricted automated texts and calls, unless the consumer being contacted has given “prior express written consent.”

This standard of providing written consent to authorize robocalls has been the longstanding tradition in TCPA lawsuits.  The FCC required the written agreement to include the consumer’s phone number and signature before a caller is allowed to deliver advertisements or pre-recorded messages.

The Fifth Circuit, though, has now broken with that standard.  The Court compared the TCPA’s statutory language to the FCC’s guidance and regulations and found that the requirement for consent to be “written” did not arise under the Act.  The FCC included “prior express written consent” in its guidance, whereas the TCPA only required “prior express consent” to authorize automated texts and calls.

In Bradford, the ultimate deciding factor was that the plaintiff had given his phone number to Sovereign Pest Control to be contacted about their services.  That prior consent was sufficient for him to receive automated calls as well, according to the Court.  As the decision alters the standard for robocall lawsuits in the Fifth Circuit states, consumers may face fewer opportunities to recover damages when bombarded by telemarketers.

Implied Consent and the Dead One-to-One Requirement

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling augments the standard for implied consent to include circumstances in which a consumer provides their phone number to a seller but does not explicitly agree to receive advertisements or pre-recorded messages.  Explicit consent is usually necessary when the consumer needs to be contacted for non-marketing purposes, such as coordinating a service scheduled in the future.

In 2025, the FCC released a final rule that removed a one-to-one requirement, in which consumers who agreed to be contacted had to be reached by one specific seller rather than hundreds of other sellers.  Without this requirement, consumers might be exposed to greater volumes of robocalls from a wider variety of sellers and telemarketers.

Consumers’ recourse for the greater volume of calls that might ensue may be more difficult to obtain in the Fifth Circuit after Bradford.  Nonetheless, the remedies for unreasonable and unwarranted automated calls remain available under the TCPA.  Depending on the specific TCPA claims, lawsuits may still result in consequences for offenders – even in the Fifth Circuit.

Three Ways for Consumers to Avoid Robocalls

While giving your phone number to a company might count as prior express consent in the Fifth Circuit, the good news is that consumers can revoke consent at any time.  There are multiple ways to do this, which can limit the volume of spam calls or texts that one receives.  Unwanted calls and texts may still occur after consumers revoke their consent, but these are straightforward violations of the TCPA.  In such cases, lawsuits may provide relief for people who removed their consent to be contacted and restore them with damages.

The easiest way to reduce the volume of calls is by adding one’s number to the National Do Not Call Registry (DNC).  The registry tells telemarketers and other sellers which consumers prefer not to receive calls, but it does not block those sellers from calling the consumer in violation of their non-consent.  If sellers continue to contact a number that is on the registry, consumers can report it to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a consumer protection agency.

Depending on your device, iOS and Android have built in features to help deter unwanted calls.  iPhone settings can silence any calls from numbers that are not in a user’s contact, and Android settings include a filter against spam calls.  Consumers may find it helpful to use apps on their phones to decrease calls from unknown numbers.

Lastly, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile also have tools or services that can minimize disruptions from robocalls.  These providers have analytics providers that may help making sure the calls are labeled correctly.  Reporting issues to cell providers may also decrease the amount of robocalls and texts consumers are bombarded with.

If consumers take preventative steps to reduce the number of robocalls and automated messages but still receive them, they may be able to seek relief through an individual or class action TCPA lawsuit.  In such cases, the consumer should keep track of the frequency of calls and texts received.  Keeping one’s old phone or call records can also smooth the process so that call histories or text message records are not lost upon getting a new device and remain available during an investigation or lawsuit.

Businesses That Use Telemarketing Services

Navigating the legal landscape of telemarketing can be challenging, especially with emerging legal and regulatory changes around telemarketing calls and texts.  The FTC created the DNC Registry based on the Telemarking Sales Rule (TSR), which highlights the sellers’ behaviors that are prohibited.  Based on the TSR, callers that solicit consumers are restricted from abusive behaviors.

There are some exceptions to the DNC Registry.  Charities, political organizations, telephone surveyors, and debt collectors have different expectations regarding the DNC list.  Many telemarketers are a third party, operating on behalf of another organization, so consumers may ask them not to call their number anymore.

Businesses should have a process to regularly check if the phone numbers used in their telemarketing or advertising strategies are on the DNC list.  Depending on the states in which a business operates, a business may be subject to stricter requirements than the TCPA about the purposes for which they are allowed to call or text.  Accordingly, it is necessary for a business to stay apprised of state laws and regulations governing telemarketing calls and texts.  Overall, businesses should respond appropriately when consumers revoke their consent or ask to not be contacted again, as the consequences for non-compliance can be steep.