Key parties include plaintiff Michael Bradford, who sued after receiving prerecorded renewal calls; defendant Sovereign Pest Control of Texas, Inc., which obtained Bradford's cell number during a service agreement without call limitations or objections from him; the FCC, whose 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2) was deemed to exceed statutory text; and the Fifth Circuit, applying plain-meaning interpretation post-Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (overturning Chevron deference) and McLaughlin.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The TCPA (1991) prohibits such calls absent "prior express consent of the called party," defined at enactment as consent "directly given, either viva voce or in writing."[1][3][5]
This stems from Bradford providing his number for contact in a business relationship, upheld as sufficient consent; the ruling, issued February 25 or 26, 2026, directly flows from Loper Bright (2024), enabling courts to independently interpret TCPA text without FCC deference.[1][2][4][6][9][10] Prior FCC rules had imposed stricter written consent for telemarketing, creating liability risks.
Newsworthy now (published February 27, 2026) as a major shift shielding businesses—especially those relying on oral/implied consent via customer relationships—from TCPA class actions in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, potentially upending litigation while complicating proof of non-written consent; state laws may differ.[2][3][4][7] It signals broader post-Loper Bright challenges to agency TCPA rules.[1][4][10]