H.R. 10601, the Stop Spam Calls Act: The Complete Guide to the Bill That Would Bring Back One-to-One Consent
H.R. 10610 Bill Tracker
| Bill | H.R. 10610, Stop Spam Calls Act (119th Congress) |
| Status | In committee. Referred to House Energy and Commerce on September 24, 2026. |
| Sponsor | Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA-10) |
| Cosponsors | 7 (4 D, 3 R). Lead Republican: Rep. Jefferson Shreve (R-IN-6). |
| Hearings or markups | None scheduled |
| Senate companion | None |
| Text versions | One. Introduced in House (IH), September 24, 2026. |
| Deadline to pass | January 3, 2027, when the 119th Congress ends. After that it must be reintroduced. |
| Status checked | October 17, 2026 |
Key Takeaways
- H.R. 10610 would make the FCC bring back the one-to-one consent rule. Within one year of enactment, the FCC must rewrite the definition of "prior express written consent" in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9) to match the version it published on January 26, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 5098). That version allowed each consent to cover "no more than one identified seller," and required calls to be "logically and topically associated" with the interaction that produced the consent.
- The rule it would restore is not law today. The Eleventh Circuit vacated it in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025), before it took effect. The FCC deleted the language from the CFR in August 2025. Anyone telling you one-to-one consent is currently required is wrong.
- Nothing happens on a date tied to introduction. The FCC's one-year clock and the 18-month effective date both run from enactment. If the bill never passes, neither clock ever starts.
- The bill amends a regulation, not the statute. It does not touch 47 U.S.C. § 227. That matters because the Fifth Circuit held in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc. (Feb. 25, 2026) that the statute itself does not require written consent at all. The bill's rule of construction tries to blunt Bradford. In my read, it does not overrule it.
- Odds of passage this Congress are low. No hearing, no markup, no Senate companion, and fewer than 80 days left in the 119th Congress. But the bill is bipartisan and backed by every major consumer group in this space. Expect it to come back in 2027, and watch for it to ride on a larger robocall package.
- The exposure is specific. If restored, one-to-one hits telemarketing calls and texts made with an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice. That includes AI voice. It does not reach live-agent calls on a non-autodialer system, and it does not touch informational calls.
- What to do now: Don't rebuild your consent flows around a bill. Do find out which of your lead sources would fail a one-seller test. That map takes a few weeks to build and costs nothing to keep in a drawer.
In December 2023, the FCC tried to end the multi-seller lead form. It adopted a rule that said one consumer consent could authorize robocalls from one seller, not a dozen. The lead generation industry spent all of 2024 rebuilding forms, renegotiating contracts, and repricing leads to get ready.
Then, one business day before the rule was set to take effect, the Eleventh Circuit threw it out.
On September 24, 2026, a bipartisan group in the House introduced a bill to bring it back. It is H.R. 10610, the Stop Spam Calls Act. It is two pages long, and every word of it is aimed at the lead-gen consent model.
This guide covers what the bill says, what rule it would restore, why the courts killed that rule, why one more court decision makes Congress's job harder than it looks, and what operators should do about it. I'll keep the tracker at the top current as the bill moves.
What H.R. 10610 Actually Says
The official title is "To direct the Federal Communications Commission to revise regulations with respect to the definition of the term 'prior express written consent', and for other purposes." The operative text is one section with three parts.
Section 2(a): the revision. Within one year after enactment, the FCC must revise 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9) so that it reads as it did in the FCC's final rule titled "Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful Text Messages, Implementation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls," published January 26, 2024, at 89 Fed. Reg. 5098.
That is the whole mandate. The bill does not write out a new consent definition. It incorporates the 2024 text by reference. To know what the bill requires, you have to read a Federal Register notice from almost three years ago.
Section 2(b): the effective date. The restored definition applies 18 months after enactment.
Section 2(c): the rule of construction. Nothing in the section may be read to suggest that the FCC lacked authority, before enactment, to require that prior express consent be in writing under § 64.1200.
Section 2(c) is the most interesting sentence in the bill. Section 2(a) is about the 2024 rule and the Eleventh Circuit. Section 2(c) is about something else: the 2012 written-consent rule and the Fifth Circuit. I'll come back to it.
A note on drafts. The sponsor's office posted a pre-introduction draft PDF on the day of introduction. It is a House Legislative Counsel draft dated July 9, 2026, with the bill number and committee left blank. Its text matches the official introduced version. If you are reading analysis built on that PDF, the substance is the same, but cite the official text from Congress.gov.
The Rule It Would Restore: One-to-One Consent, Line by Line
"Prior express written consent" is the consent standard the FCC's rules require for telemarketing calls and texts that use an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice. The definition lives in § 64.1200(f)(9). The requirement to have it lives in § 64.1200(a)(2) and (a)(3).
Here is what changes if the bill passes and the FCC complies.
| Element | Current rule (2012 text, restored by the FCC in Aug. 2025) | 2024 one-to-one text (what H.R. 10610 restores) |
|---|---|---|
| Who can be authorized | "the seller" | "no more than one identified seller" |
| How clear the authorization must be | "clearly authorizes" | "clearly and conspicuously authorizes" |
| Channels named | "the person called" | "the person called or texted" |
| Subject-matter limit | None | Calls and texts "must be logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted the consent" |
| Signature, phone number, disclosures, e-sign | Required | Same |
Three changes do the work.
One identified seller. A single checkbox that authorizes calls from "our marketing partners," with a hyperlinked list of 200 companies, would not count. Each seller needs its own consent. The FCC said in the 2023 order that comparison-shopping sites could still present multiple sellers, as long as the consumer picks each one individually. That is the "one-to-one" in one-to-one: one consent, one seller, even if one form collects several consents.
Logically and topically associated. Even a consent that names one seller would fail if the calls don't match what the consumer was doing. A consumer who fills out a mortgage quote form has not consented to calls from a solar installer, even if the solar installer is named. This is the requirement people forget, and it reaches further than the one-seller rule. It applies to single-seller first-party forms too.
Clear and conspicuous. The authorization itself, not just the disclosures, must be clear and conspicuous. Expect plaintiffs to use this phrase against fine print, gray-on-gray text, and consent language below the submit button.
What does not change matters just as much. The definition still applies only to advertisements and telemarketing messages "using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice." That limit decides who is actually exposed (see "Who Gets Hit" below).
How We Got Here: 2012 to 2026
You cannot understand this bill without the four events before it.
2012: The FCC adds "written." The TCPA itself, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), requires "prior express consent" for autodialed and prerecorded calls to cell phones. It says nothing about writing. In 2012, the FCC decided that for telemarketing and advertising robocalls, the consent had to be written and signed, with specific disclosures. That is the "prior express written consent" standard everyone in lead gen has built to for more than a decade.
December 2023: The FCC adds one-to-one. In its Second Report and Order (FCC 23-107), the FCC targeted what it called the "lead generator loophole." It revised (f)(9) to add the one-seller and logically-and-topically requirements. The rule was published January 26, 2024, at 89 Fed. Reg. 5098, with a compliance date of January 27, 2025.
January 2025: The Eleventh Circuit vacates it. The Insurance Marketing Coalition, a trade group of insurance marketers, petitioned for review. On January 24, 2025, a unanimous panel (Judges Branch, Luck, and Lagoa; opinion by Judge Branch) vacated both new requirements. Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025). The court held that "prior express consent" carries its ordinary common-law meaning. A consumer can consent to calls from more than one caller, and on more than one topic, as long as the consent is clear. The FCC can fill gaps in the statute. It cannot add restrictions the statute doesn't contain. The court was careful about scope: in a footnote, it said the 2012 written-consent order "is not at issue in this case."
The same day, the FCC had already postponed the rule's effective date. It never took effect anywhere.
August 2025: The FCC deletes the language. The FCC did not seek further review. In DA 25-621, adopted July 14, 2025, and published August 29, 2025 (90 Fed. Reg. 42137), the FCC removed the vacated text from (f)(9) and reinstated the prior version. It said it "lacks discretion to depart from" the court's mandate.
February 2026: The Fifth Circuit goes further. In Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc., No. 24-20379 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2026), Chief Judge Elrod, joined by Judges Clement and Haynes, held that the TCPA does not require written consent for prerecorded telemarketing calls at all. "Prior express consent" can be oral or written. Applying Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025), the court read the statute without deferring to the FCC and found no textual basis for treating telemarketing calls differently from other calls on the form of consent.
So by the time H.R. 10610 was introduced, the one-to-one rule was dead nationwide, and the 2012 written-consent rule itself was unenforceable in private suits in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
That is the landscape the bill walks into.
The Bradford Problem: Can Congress Fix This With a Regulation?
Most coverage of H.R. 10610 treats it as a simple reversal of IMC. It is more complicated than that, and the complication is the most important thing for a lead buyer to understand.
Against IMC, the bill is probably enough. IMC held that the FCC exceeded its authority under § 227. If Congress, by statute, orders the FCC to adopt specific text, the FCC is no longer stretching § 227. It is following a direct command. A later, specific statute generally controls. I would expect a court to give effect to a regulation Congress expressly ordered.
Against Bradford, the bill is weaker. Bradford did not strike down a regulation. It read the statute. The court held that § 227(b)(1)(A) is satisfied by oral consent. H.R. 10610 does not amend § 227(b)(1)(A). It does not add the word "written" to the statute. It changes a definition in the CFR and then says, in Section 2(c), that nothing in the bill should be read to suggest the FCC lacked authority to require writing.
Read Section 2(c) closely. It is a "no inference" clause. It tells courts not to draw a negative inference from the bill. It does not say the FCC had that authority. It does not ratify the 2012 rule. And it does not touch § 64.1200(a)(2) and (a)(3), the provisions that actually require written consent and that Bradford found contrary to the statute. A court in the Fifth Circuit could accept everything in H.R. 10610 and still hold, under Bradford, that a call made with clear oral consent does not violate the statute.
The private-right-of-action question. There is one more gap defendants will test. The TCPA's private remedy, § 227(b)(3), covers violations of "this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection." A rule the FCC adopts because a free-standing 2026 statute told it to is arguably prescribed under that statute, not under § 227(b). Courts have already shown they will police that phrase. A Florida federal court used the parallel language in § 227(c)(5) this September to hold the National DNC rule is not privately enforceable (see our DNC rules and text messages breakdown). I would not bet a compliance program on this argument. But expect it to be made, and expect Congress to hear about it if the bill moves.
The clean fix is the statute. If Congress wants one-to-one, written consent nationwide, the durable way to do it is to amend § 227(b)(1)(A) itself. Something like "prior express written consent, as defined by the Commission." H.R. 10610 does not do that. If the bill gets a markup, watch for an amendment that does. That would be the version that changes the law in every circuit.
My read. As drafted, H.R. 10610 would likely restore one-to-one consent as an enforceable FCC rule, and as a basis for private suits, in most of the country. In the Fifth Circuit, it would face a serious Bradford challenge. That produces the worst outcome for national operators: a consent standard that varies by circuit. You would build to the strictest version anyway.
What the Bill Does Not Do
Readers searching for "Stop Spam Calls Act" often expect more than the bill contains. Here is the boundary.
- It does not change the autodialer definition. After Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021), an ATDS must use a random or sequential number generator. Most modern dialers don't. The bill leaves that alone. (A separate bill, H.R. 8311 and its Senate companion S. 4307, would broaden the ATDS definition. Different bill, different fight.)
- It does not regulate live-agent calls on non-ATDS systems. Prior express written consent only governs calls using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice. A human agent dialing manually, or on a system that is not an ATDS under Duguid, is outside the definition the bill rewrites.
- It does not touch informational calls. Appointment reminders, fraud alerts, and payment notices need only prior express consent under the FCC's rules. The bill changes the telemarketing definition only.
- It does not change the DNC rules. The National DNC Registry rule and its "signed, written agreement" exception in § 64.1200(c)(2)(ii) are separately worded. The bill does not amend them.
- It does not change revocation rules. The FCC's opt-out and revocation rules are on a separate track (most recently FCC 26-67, adopted September 30, 2026). The cross-channel "revoke-all" provision is still waived to January 31, 2027.
- It does not preempt state law. Florida, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania (Act 47 of 2026, effective October 18, 2026), and other states have their own written-consent regimes for automated calls and texts. Those stand on their own regardless of what happens to this bill.
- It does not create a new private right of action or new penalties. Damages stay where they are under § 227(b)(3): $500 per violation, up to $1,500 if willful.
Who Gets Hit: Lead Generators, Lead Buyers, and AI Voice
I spent years on the operator side of this industry, at LendingTree and ConsumerAffairs. Here is how I'd think about exposure if the rule comes back.
Lead generators running shared or comparison forms. This is the target. A form that sends one consumer to five, eight, or twelve buyers would need a separate, seller-specific consent for each buyer the consumer actually selects. Every buyer has to be named. Every buyer has to match the topic of the form. The economics change with it. A shared lead sold four times becomes, at best, a lead sold to however many sellers the consumer clicks. Expect fewer sales per lead, higher prices per lead, and more pressure toward exclusive and call-transfer models.
Lead buyers. Buyers carry the TCPA risk because they are the "seller" on whose behalf the call is made. If the rule returns, a lead bought from a multi-seller form is only as good as the seller-level consent record behind it. "We got a TrustedForm certificate" will not be enough. The question becomes: does the record show that this consumer selected this seller, on a form about this topic, with this disclosure visible? If your vendor can't produce that record on request, treat the lead as unconsented for any automated outreach.
Aggregators and ping-post networks. The ping-post model routes a lead to the highest bidder after the consumer submits. Under one-to-one, the seller has to be identified before consent is given. A buyer selected after submission was never identified to the consumer. That model needs redesign, not a disclosure tweak.
AI voice platforms and their customers. This is the part of the bill most coverage misses. In February 2024, the FCC ruled that AI-generated voices are "artificial" voices under the TCPA. An AI voice agent making a telemarketing call is making an artificial-voice call, so it needs prior express written consent outside the Fifth Circuit today. If H.R. 10610 becomes law, every AI voice outbound sales campaign running on purchased leads would need one-to-one, topically matched consent for the specific seller the AI is calling for. Platforms that let customers upload third-party leads should think now about what consent evidence they require at upload. For the full framework, see our AI voice compliance guide.
Prerecorded and ringless voicemail campaigns. Same analysis as AI voice. Prerecorded telemarketing is squarely inside the definition.
First-party brands. A brand collecting consent on its own site for its own calls clears the one-seller rule easily. It still has to clear the logically-and-topically requirement. A consent captured on a warranty registration page probably doesn't cover marketing calls for an unrelated product line.
Who Is Behind It, and Who Is Against It
Sponsors. Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA-10) introduced the bill with Rep. Jefferson Shreve (R-IN-6) as the lead Republican. Original cosponsors were Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL-8), André Carson (D-IN-7), George Whitesides (D-CA-27), and John W. Mannion (D-NY-22). Rep. Daniel Meuser (R-PA-9) joined September 28 and Rep. Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA-7) joined October 5. That is seven cosponsors, four Democrats and three Republicans, and two Republicans added after introduction. Momentum is modest but real.
The sponsors' framing is consumer-facing and simple. "Giving one company permission to call you shouldn't open the door to calls from countless others," Shreve said in the introduction release.
Supporters. The National Consumer Law Center, the National Consumers League, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the Consumer Federation of America, and Consumer Action endorsed the bill. NCLC was the leading advocate for the 2023 rule and the leading critic of the IMC decision. Its fingerprints are on this bill.
Opposition. No trade group has issued a formal statement on H.R. 10610 as of this writing. But the industry position is not a mystery. The Insurance Marketing Coalition brought the case that killed the 2023 rule. Lead-gen, insurance, mortgage, and home services trade groups fought the rule through 2024. Defense-side commentators have already called the bill an attempt to restore "the terrible rule that nearly broke lead generation." Expect organized opposition the moment the bill gets a hearing notice.
Will It Pass? The Realistic Paths
Most bills die in committee. This one has more going for it than most, and less time than it needs.
Path 1: It dies on January 3, 2027. The most likely outcome. No hearing has been noticed. Energy and Commerce has a crowded calendar. There is no Senate companion. Fewer than 80 days remain in the 119th Congress, with an election and a lame-duck session in between. When Congress ends, every pending bill dies.
Path 2: It comes back in the 120th Congress. Likely. Bipartisan sponsors and organized consumer-group support usually mean reintroduction. A reintroduced bill gets a new number, so watch for the "Stop Spam Calls Act" title, not "H.R. 10610." A new version is also the moment for a drafting fix, such as amending § 227(b)(1)(A) directly, that would answer Bradford.
Path 3: It rides on a bigger vehicle. The one I'd watch. Robocall legislation tends to move in packages. The House Energy and Commerce Committee reported the Foreign Robocall Elimination Act (H.R. 6152) by a 37-0 vote in September 2026, and the QUIET Act (H.R. 1027), on AI-voice disclosure, had a legislative hearing in July. A two-page, bipartisan bill is easy to fold into a package like that as an amendment. If you see a robocall package scheduled for markup, check whether one-to-one language is in it.
Path 4: The FCC does it without Congress. Unlikely. The current FCC chose not to fight IMC, deleted the rule, and has spent the last year in a deregulatory "Delete, Delete, Delete" proceeding. IMC also holds the FCC lacks authority to adopt the rule on its own. A future FCC would need Congress.
And the path most people miss: the states. The one-to-one idea doesn't need Congress to reach you. Illinois HB 2435, which passed the Illinois House and could move in the fall veto session (November 17 to 19 and December 1 to 3), would cap consent at one year and bar selling or transferring consent. That is a more aggressive version of the same policy. For lead buyers, the state calendar is more urgent than the federal one this year.
The Timeline If It Does Pass
Both clocks run from the date the President signs. Not from introduction, and not from any committee vote.
| Event | Timing | Example (if signed Dec. 15, 2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Enactment | Day 0 | December 15, 2026 |
| FCC must revise § 64.1200(f)(9) | Within 1 year | By December 15, 2027 |
| Restored definition applies | 18 months after enactment | June 15, 2028 |
That runway is real. It is also shorter than it looks. The 2023 rule gave the industry a year, and most of the industry needed all of it to rebuild forms, retool ping-post logic, renegotiate buyer contracts, and reprice. Eighteen months is enough time to do it well. It is not enough time to start late.
One drafting gap to flag: Section 2(b) says the definition applies 18 months after enactment, but Section 2(a) gives the FCC up to 12 months to write it. If the FCC misses its deadline, the bill does not say what happens. Expect that question in any markup.
What to Do Now
1. Don't rebuild your consent flows around a bill. Nothing in H.R. 10610 is law. Rebuilding a revenue-producing form for a rule that may never exist is a cost with no return.
2. Build the map instead. For every lead source, answer three questions. Does the consent name one seller or many? Is the seller identified before the consumer submits, or selected afterward? Does the form's topic match what the buyer will call about? That map is cheap, and it tells you your exposure under H.R. 10610, under Illinois HB 2435, and under any state that moves next. Our lead generation compliance page walks through how to audit your lead vendors.
3. Separate consent from exclusivity. An "exclusive" lead and a "one-to-one" lead are different things. Exclusivity is a contract term about distribution. One-to-one is a consent term about authorization. A lead can be exclusive and still carry a vague multi-partner consent. Know which one you are buying.
4. Fix the logically-and-topically gap now. This one costs little and helps under current law. Plaintiffs already argue that consent captured on an unrelated form is not "clear" consent under IMC's own standard. Matching the call to the form's topic is good practice today, and it was the part of the 2023 rule that applied to everyone.
5. Tighten your vendor contracts. Lead purchase agreements should require seller-level consent records, retrievable on request, with the exact disclosure displayed. They should include a change-in-law clause that lets you suspend or reprice if the consent standard changes. See our guide to TCPA consent language.
6. If you run AI voice outbound, decide now what consent you require at lead upload. You need prior express written consent for AI voice telemarketing in most of the country today. If one-to-one returns, you need it per seller. Either way, the platform or the customer has to be able to prove it.
7. Watch four signals. An Energy and Commerce hearing notice that lists H.R. 10610. A Senate companion. Any robocall package scheduled for markup. And reintroduction in January 2027. Any one of those moves this from "watch" to "plan."
The answer and the armor. The answer to "do we have to change anything for H.R. 10610?" is no. Not today. The harder question is whether your consent architecture could survive one-to-one, a Bradford split, and a state consent-transfer ban, all at the same time. Most lead programs can't answer that because nobody has mapped them. If you want that map built once, and kept current as Congress and the states move, talk to us about a Consent Architecture Review. For the broader framework, start with our TCPA compliance overview.
FAQ
What is H.R. 10610? H.R. 10610, the Stop Spam Calls Act, is a bill introduced in the U.S. House on September 24, 2026, by Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) with Rep. Jefferson Shreve (R-IN). It would direct the FCC to restore its 2024 one-to-one consent rule, which requires prior express written consent for telemarketing robocalls and robotexts to authorize no more than one identified seller.
Is the FCC's one-to-one consent rule in effect? No. The Eleventh Circuit vacated it in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025), before it took effect, and the FCC removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations in August 2025. It would come back only if H.R. 10610 or a similar law is enacted and the FCC then acts.
When would the Stop Spam Calls Act take effect? Only after enactment. The FCC would have one year after enactment to revise the rule, and the restored definition would apply 18 months after enactment. The bill has not passed either chamber. If it is not enacted by January 3, 2027, it dies and must be reintroduced.
Does H.R. 10610 apply to text messages? Yes, to the extent texts fall within the rule it rewrites. The 2024 definition expressly covers the person "called or texted." Like the current rule, it applies to telemarketing texts sent using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice.
Does H.R. 10610 apply to live-agent calls? Generally no. Prior express written consent applies to telemarketing calls using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice. A live agent on a dialer that is not an ATDS under Facebook v. Duguid is outside the definition. State law and DNC rules may still apply.
Does H.R. 10610 affect AI voice calls? Yes. The FCC ruled in February 2024 that AI-generated voices are "artificial" voices under the TCPA. AI voice telemarketing calls already require prior express written consent in most of the country. If the bill becomes law, they would need one-to-one consent for each seller.
What does "logically and topically associated" mean? It was the second requirement in the 2024 rule. Calls and texts had to relate to the interaction that prompted the consent. A consumer who requests a mortgage quote has not consented to calls about an unrelated product, even from a named seller. The Eleventh Circuit vacated this requirement along with the one-seller rule. H.R. 10610 would restore both.
How does H.R. 10610 interact with Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control? Bradford (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2026) held that the TCPA does not require written consent for prerecorded telemarketing calls, because the statute says only "prior express consent." H.R. 10610 does not amend the statute. Its rule of construction says the bill should not be read to suggest the FCC lacked authority to require written consent, but it does not overrule Bradford. In Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, a restored rule would likely face a Bradford challenge.
Is there a Senate version of the Stop Spam Calls Act? Not as of October 17, 2026. S. 4307 and S. 2666 are separate robocall bills, not companions.
Should I change my lead forms now? Not because of this bill alone. Map which lead sources would fail a one-seller and topic-match test, tighten vendor contracts, and watch for a hearing, a Senate companion, or a robocall package. Several state bills, including Illinois HB 2435, are moving faster than this one.
