[co-author: Karalyn Joseph]
On February 25, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a landmark opinion in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of Texas, ruling that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) does not require “prior express written consent” for telemarketing calls to wireless numbers that use any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Case No. 24‑20379 (5th Cir. 2026). Instead, the court found that either oral or written consent is sufficient.
Key holding: The TCPA does not require “prior express consent” to be in writing
The plaintiff in Bradford alleged that the defendant placed multiple prerecorded marketing calls without obtaining “prior express written consent” under the FCC's rules. The Plaintiff had provided his phone number when he entered into a service-plan agreement with the defendant.
Focusing on the statutory text of the TCPA, the Fifth Circuit emphasized that the law requires only “prior express consent,” and neither Congress nor contemporaneous definitions of the phrase “express consent” impose a writing requirement. The court then found that the plaintiff's provision of his phone number constituted prior express consent because the plaintiff (1) did not limit the scope of calls to which he consented when he provided his phone number and (2) never objected to the calls or asked the defendant not to call him.
Bradford is part of a broader trend whereby courts are more willing to question longstanding regulatory interpretations post-Loper Bright. The result is a quickly evolving landscape of TCPA standards across circuits.
[View source.]
