The regulatory ground beneath lead generation is shifting — fast. Three court decisions in the past two weeks have introduced new questions about consent requirements, text message liability, and state-level enforcement that every lead buyer and seller needs to understand.

What they share in common: they’re all downstream effects of the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated judicial deference to federal agency interpretations. The FCC’s decades of TCPA rulemaking are now being re-examined by federal courts — and the results are inconsistent, unpredictable, and consequential.

Here’s what happened, what it means, and what you should do about it.

On February 25, 2026, the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc. (No. 24-20379), and it’s the most significant TCPA consent ruling in months.

The facts: Radley Bradford provided his cell phone number on a service agreement with Sovereign Pest Control, stating the number was so the company could “get in contact” with him. Sovereign later placed prerecorded calls about renewal inspections. Bradford responded by scheduling inspections, renewing his plan four times — and then sued, claiming the prerecorded calls required prior express written consent under the TCPA.

The ruling: The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Sovereign. Writing for the panel, Chief Judge Elrod held that 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) requires only “prior express consent” — which can be oral — for prerecorded calls to cell phones. The court rejected the FCC’s regulatory requirement for written consent, applying Loper Bright and McLaughlin v. Compass, Inc. to interpret the statute independently.

What this means for lead gen: This is both an opportunity and a trap.

On one hand, the ruling suggests that consent requirements may be less onerous than the FCC’s rules have dictated. If oral consent suffices, the compliance burden for certain call types could decrease — at least in the Fifth Circuit.

On the other hand, this creates a circuit split. The FCC’s written consent requirement is still the rule everywhere Bradford doesn’t control. If you’re generating leads nationally and relying on oral consent alone, you’re compliant in some jurisdictions and exposed in others.

The practical takeaway: Don’t downgrade your consent collection. The safest path is still written consent with clear documentation. But Bradford matters because it signals where courts are heading post-Loper Bright: toward statutory text and away from FCC interpretive rules.

The Texts-vs-Calls Split Widens

On March 3, 2026, Judge Patricia Gaughan of the Northern District of Ohio ruled in Stockdale v. Skymount Property Group, LLC that text messages are not “telephone calls” under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) — the TCPA’s Do Not Call enforcement provision.

The facts: The plaintiff registered her cell phone on the National Do Not Call Registry in 2017. Starting in February 2022, Skymount sent unsolicited text messages soliciting her to sell her house. She sued under § 227(c)(5).

The ruling: The court dismissed the case. Consulting the 1990 Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary — the edition contemporaneous with the TCPA’s 1991 enactment — Judge Gaughan found that “telephone call” meant using a telephone to reproduce sounds at a distance. Text messages don’t reproduce sounds. Therefore, they aren’t telephone calls under the statute’s plain meaning.

The court also rejected the argument that FCC regulations extending Do Not Call rules to text-sending entities create a private right of action for text recipients. The regulations make DNC rules applicable to texters, but § 227(c)(5) only provides a cause of action for “telephone calls.”

What this means for lead gen: This is the first ruling on the issue from within the Sixth Circuit, and it joins a growing number of courts holding that texts fall outside § 227(c)(5). For lead generators who rely heavily on SMS campaigns, this may appear to reduce DNC liability exposure.

But there’s an important caveat: other TCPA provisions do cover texts. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) — the autodialer and prerecorded message provision — has been interpreted by the FCC and many courts to include text messages. The Stockdale ruling is narrow: it says texts aren’t “telephone calls” for DNC purposes, not that texts are unregulated.

The practical takeaway: Don’t treat this as a green light for unscrubbed SMS campaigns. DNC scrubbing remains a best practice even if the private right of action under § 227(c)(5) is narrowing. State laws — including Michigan’s new legislation — can fill enforcement gaps the federal courts are creating.

Michigan’s “Super TCPA” Targets Lead Lists Directly

While federal courts are narrowing certain TCPA provisions, states are moving in the opposite direction. Michigan’s Senate Bill 351 — the revived Telephone Solicitation Act — includes a provision that should alarm every lead generator operating in the state.

The key provision: Section 5(2) prohibits including the telephone number of any residential subscriber on the Do Not Call list in a “lead generation” — defined as any list “utilized or intended to be utilized for telephone solicitations,” including texts and voice calls.

What makes it different: Under the federal TCPA, DNC violations require that a call actually be placed. Michigan’s law prohibits the inclusion of DNC numbers in lead lists, even if no call is ever made. The act of compiling, selling, sharing, or distributing a lead list containing DNC numbers is itself a violation.

The penalties: The Michigan Attorney General can seek up to $25,000 per violation, $50,000 for violations involving vulnerable individuals, and $100,000 for knowing or persistent violations. TCPA and Telemarketing Sales Rule violations also count as state violations under the act.

What this means for lead gen: This is a direct hit on the lead generation supply chain. If you’re selling leads that include Michigan DNC-listed numbers — regardless of whether those leads result in calls — you’re potentially liable under state law. The liability attaches at the point of list creation and distribution, not at the point of contact.

The practical takeaway: DNC scrubbing isn’t just about avoiding bad calls anymore. In Michigan, it’s about avoiding bad leads. Lead sellers need to scrub against state and federal DNC registries before distribution, and lead buyers should require proof of scrubbing as a condition of purchase.

The Bigger Picture: Fragmentation

These three developments share a common thread: the TCPA compliance landscape is fragmenting.

Federal courts are reinterpreting TCPA provisions without FCC deference, creating circuit splits on fundamental questions like what consent means and whether texts are covered. States are simultaneously passing stricter laws that fill — and in some cases exceed — the gaps federal courts are opening.

For lead generators, this fragmentation creates a paradox. Individual rulings may appear to ease compliance in specific jurisdictions or for specific channels. But the overall effect is increased complexity and increased risk.

Consider the position of a national lead generator today:

  • Consent requirements vary by circuit. Written consent is required in most jurisdictions, but oral consent may suffice in the Fifth Circuit.
  • SMS liability varies by statute. Texts may not be “telephone calls” under § 227(c)(5), but they’re still covered under § 227(b) and increasingly under state laws.
  • DNC compliance varies by state. Federal DNC violations require a call. Michigan DNC violations require only a list.
  • Enforcement is multi-layered. The FCC, FTC, state AGs, and private plaintiffs can all bring actions under different standards.

The companies that will navigate this environment successfully are the ones treating compliance as an operational discipline — not a checkbox exercise.

Key Takeaways

  1. Don’t weaken consent collection based on Bradford. The ruling is significant but limited to the Fifth Circuit. Written consent with session-level documentation remains the gold standard.

  2. Don’t ignore DNC scrubbing for SMS. The texts-vs-calls split may reduce private litigation exposure under § 227(c)(5), but state laws and other TCPA provisions still apply.

  3. Scrub lead lists before distribution, not just before calling. Michigan’s law makes list composition itself a compliance issue. Expect other states to follow.

  4. Document everything at the session level. In a fragmented legal environment, the ability to produce granular consent evidence for any specific lead — in any jurisdiction — is the single most effective risk mitigation strategy.

  5. Monitor circuit splits actively. The post-Loper Bright TCPA landscape is evolving monthly. What’s settled law today may be overturned tomorrow. Build compliance processes that can adapt.

The regulatory environment for lead generation is changing faster than it has in a decade. Staying ahead of it requires more than legal awareness — it requires infrastructure that can adapt as the rules evolve.