World_421_ANB_01

Task prompt

What the agent was asked to do

We have a call tomorrow with SLL. To help me prepare, can you tell me whether SLL’s new text marketing campaign meets the strictest consent requirements of the TCPA? And is this legal standard still current? Please write out your answer to me here, including any explanations in a few paragraphs. FYI here are my background notes from the initial email they sent this week: Senior Living Lending, Inc. ("SLL") is a lender that focuses on mortgage solutions for seniors, reverse mortgages and non-traditional home equity lines of credit ("HELOC"). SLL partnered with “Fall Less,” a same-day walk-in-shower installer, on a joint marketing campaign. The companies emailed their combined subscriber lists, offering special access to a No Appraisal Needed HELOC for senior home modifications (e.g., ramps, showers). Customers who entered their mobile numbers and names also clicked a box to consent to receive promotional materials, including automated texts, from both companies. The consent form prominently stated “Not a Condition of Purchase,” displayed both brands, and noted that customers may opt out at any time. The companies received hundreds of mobile numbers from the email campaign.

Grading rubric

Criteria and grader verdict (showcase run)

1. States that the strictest consent requirements of the TCPA is any of the following: (1) "one-to-one consent" and (2) requires consumers to give individualized permission for each company and topic of marketing outreach

   Pass

   Evidence: Response refers to the FCC’s vacated “strictest” rule as the “one-to-one consent rule,” requiring consent to “no more than one identified seller” and “only calls whose subject matter is logically/topically associated with the consent interaction.” Assessment: The criterion asks whether it states strictest TCPA consent is one-to-one/individualized by company and topic; pass.

2. States that SLL's new text marketing campaign combines all of the following into a single box: (1) a consumer's consent to receive promotional materials from SLL and (2) a consumer's consent to receive promotional materials from Fall Less

   Pass

   Evidence: Response says “SLL used one checkbox consenting to promotional automated texts ‘from both companies,’” and “it appears to be a single consent for two sellers.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating the campaign combines consent for SLL and Fall Less promotional materials into a single box; pass.

3. States that SLL’s new text marketing campaign does not comply with the strictest consent requirements of the TCPA

   Pass

   Evidence: Response states the campaign “likely would not have met the FCC’s now-vacated ‘strictest’ one-to-one consent rule” and “if judged under the FCC’s 2023… rule, however, I would not call the campaign compliant.” Assessment: The criterion asks whether it states noncompliance with the strictest requirements; pass.

4. States that the one-to-one consent standard is not the current legal standard under the TCPA

   Pass

   Evidence: Response says “That strictest one-to-one standard is not current law” and “That is no longer legally required by the vacated FCC rule.” Assessment: The criterion asks whether it states the one-to-one consent standard is not current TCPA legal standard; pass.

5. States that the one-to-one consent standard of the TCPA was supposed to take effect after January 26, 2025

   Fail

   Evidence: The response discusses the FCC’s 2023 rule and vacatur but does not state that the one-to-one consent standard was supposed to take effect after January 26, 2025. Assessment: The criterion specifically requires mentioning the intended effective timing after January 26, 2025; fail.

6. States that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority by attempting to redefine "prior express consent"

   Fail

   Evidence: Response states the Eleventh Circuit “held that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority” but does not mention redefining “prior express consent.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating the FCC exceeded authority by attempting to redefine “prior express consent”; the authority point is present but the redefinition of prior express consent is absent, so fail.

7. States that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the FCC's order to effect the one-to-one consent standard under the TCPA

   Pass

   Evidence: Response says “The Eleventh Circuit vacated Part III.D of the FCC’s 2023 order” and expressly “vacate[d] Part III.D of the 2023 Order,” after identifying that part as containing the one-to-one restrictions. Assessment: The criterion asks whether it states the 11th Circuit vacated the FCC order to effect the one-to-one standard; pass.

8. States that the current legal standard for consent under the TCPA is any of the following: (1) "prior express written consent" and (2) that consent must include all of the following: (i) be documented in writing, (ii) include the consumer’s signature, (iii) contain “Not a Condition of Purchase” language and (iv) authorize the seller to deliver automated telemarketing or automated texts using an automatic or artificial or prerecorded system

   Pass

   Evidence: Response says the “operative baseline is prior express written consent,” requiring the consumer to “sign or electronically sign a written agreement,” with “clear and conspicuous disclosure,” “consent cannot be required as a condition of purchase,” and authorizing “marketing texts sent using an autodialer or automated texting platform.” Assessment: The criterion allows either naming prior express written consent or listing elements; the response clearly names it and describes key elements; pass.