A recent decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals may significantly reshape how “prior express consent” is interpreted under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of Texas, Inc.(Feb. 25, 2026), the court held that a consumer who gives a business their cellphone number effectively consents to receive prerecorded calls and text messages related to that relationship. The ruling affirms a lower court’s decision that a pest control company did not violate the TCPA when it used prerecorded messages to remind a customer about renewal inspections.
The plaintiff, Radley Bradford, enrolled in a service plan and provided his cellphone number as part of the agreement. Sovereign Pest Control later sent him prerecorded reminders to schedule inspections, which he followed through on multiple times. Despite renewing his plan year after year, Bradford eventually filed a class action lawsuit, arguing that the company needed his “prior express written consent,” as defined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to make such calls.
The Fifth Circuit rejected that argument. It emphasized that the TCPA itself requires only “prior express consent,” not “prior express written consent,” unless additional requirements are imposed by the FCC. Importantly, the court declined to defer to FCC interpretations and instead focused on the statutory text. It concluded that “express consent” may be either oral or written—and that voluntarily providing a phone number for contact satisfies that standard.
The court also pointed to the parties’ ongoing relationship. Bradford not only supplied his number but repeatedly renewed his service plan and never objected to the communications. This pattern, the court found, reinforced the conclusion that he consented to receive messages related to the services he continued to request.
This decision diverges from approaches taken in other circuits, such as the Ninth Circuit, where courts more heavily rely on FCC rules requiring a higher level of consent. By rejecting those interpretations, the Fifth Circuit adopts a more text-focused—and generally more business-friendly—approach to the TCPA.
The court’s reasoning reflects a broader shift in administrative law following recent Supreme Court decisions that have curtailed the doctrine known as “Chevron deference.” Historically, courts often deferred to agency interpretations when statutes were unclear. Now, courts are increasingly interpreting statutory language independently, treating agency guidance as persuasive rather than binding. As a result, longstanding FCC orders—such as those issued in 1992 and 2012—carry less authoritative weight, paving the way for rulings like Bradford.
Conclusion:
For businesses that use prerecorded calls or text messages for appointment reminders, scheduling, or service updates, this decision provides important guidance. In the Fifth Circuit, a customer’s act of providing a cellphone number in the context of a transaction or service relationship will generally qualify as “prior express consent” under the TCPA. Written consent is no longer required in most cases—unless the communication involves telemarketing.
