{"id":2835,"date":"2026-03-25T11:14:35","date_gmt":"2026-03-25T15:14:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2835"},"modified":"2026-03-25T11:14:36","modified_gmt":"2026-03-25T15:14:36","slug":"maryland-federal-district-court-finds-that-oral-consent-is-sufficient-to-make-telemarketing-calls-using-a-prerecorded-voice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/03\/25\/maryland-federal-district-court-finds-that-oral-consent-is-sufficient-to-make-telemarketing-calls-using-a-prerecorded-voice\/","title":{"rendered":"Maryland Federal District Court Finds That Oral Consent Is Sufficient To Make Telemarketing Calls Using A Prerecorded Voice"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Anna Sheridan, and Ryan T. Garippo<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>On March 20, 2026, in Bradley, et al. v. DentalPlans.com, No. 20-CV-010904, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59569 (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2026), Judge Brandan Hurson of the U.S. District Court for District of Maryland decertified <\/a>a certified class action and granted summary judgment on a named plaintiff\u2019s Telephone Consumer Protection Act (\u201cTCPA\u201d) claim.\u00a0 The decision is premised on the legal conclusion that the Federal Communications Commission (\u201cFCC\u201d) lacked the authority to interpret the TCPA\u2019s consent provisions to require prior express written consent for telemarketing calls and continues the trend of courts which are challenging the FCC\u2019s longstanding monopoly to interpret the statute.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

DentalPlans operates a \u201cdirect-to-consumer marketplace\u201d that sells dental savings plans, including plans offered by Cigna.  In November 2018, Deborah Bradley called DentalPlans to enroll in a plan and the representative asked her whether the company had her consent to contact her using \u201cautomated dialing system or prerecorded message.\u201d  Bradley, et al. v. DentalPlans.com<\/em>, No. 20-CV-01094, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10050, at *3 (D. Md. June 6, 2024).  Bradley ultimately provided such consent and signed up for a dental discount plan with Cigna.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In September 2019, however, Bradley spoke to another DentalPlans representative and told that representative that she did not want her dental plan to automatically renew.  As a result, DentalPlans started placing prerecorded calls to Bradley which informed her that \u201cher membership was ending soon and that she could renew her plan.\u201d  After Bradley\u2019s plan expired, she continued to receive prerecorded calls which \u201cattempted to \u2018win back\u2019 [her] business by encouraging her to repurchase her Cigna plan with DentalPlans.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *5.  In total, DentalPlans placed 10 \u201cwin back\u201d calls to Bradley prior to the filing of the action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result of these calls, on April 28, 2020, Bradley filed a putative class action lawsuit under the TCPA, alleging that the calls constituted unauthorized telemarketing calls using prerecorded messages.  The crux of Bradley\u2019s argument was that because these calls allegedly constituted \u201ctelemarketing\u201d the applicable FCC regulations required prior express written<\/em> consent, and oral consent would not suffice.  47 C.F.R. \u00a7 64.1200(a)(2).  The court agreed with Bradley\u2019s interpretation of the regulation, granted class certification, and certified a class comprised in part of \u201cany consumer who signed up by telephone.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *27.  Bradley then sent notice to the class members and the parties continued to litigate the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DentalPlans ultimately filed a motion for reconsideration of the court\u2019s order granting class certification.  In that motion, Dental Plans argued, inter alia<\/em>, that the court\u2019s reliance on 47 C.F.R. \u00a7 64.1200(a)(2) was misplaced following the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s mandate that district courts are \u201cnot bound by the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA.\u201d  McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp.<\/em>, 606 U.S. 146, 168 (2025).  The parties then briefed that issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a thorough 24-page opinion, Judge Hurson walked through the proper interpretation of the phrase \u201cprior express consent\u201d as used in the TCPA and the scope of Congress\u2019s delegation to the FCC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In so doing, Judge Hurson turned to the Eleventh Circuit\u2019s opinion in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, <\/em>127 F.4th 303, 312 (11th Cir. 2025), which explained that the \u201cTCPA gives the FCC only the authority to \u2018reasonably define’ the TCPA’s consent-provisions\u201d and not create a non-statutory consent regime. Judge Hurson, therefore, reasoned that because the phrase \u201cprior express written consent\u201d was not contained in the statute, the proper interpretation of the statute\u2019s actual language hinged on the authority that Congress delegated to the FCC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, Judge Hurson looked to the Fifth Circuit\u2019s very recent decision in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of Texas, Inc.<\/em>, 167 F.4th 809, 812 (5th Cir. 2026), which held the TCPA provides \u201cno basis for concluding that telemarketing calls require prior express written <\/em>consentbut not oral consent.”  (emphasis in original).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on these opinions, because the \u201cwritten consent\u201d language does not appear in the statute, Judge Hurson concluded that Congress needed to delegate the interpretation <\/em>of the TCPA to the FCC for its current interpretation to stand.  But no such delegation is contained in the TCPA.  As a result, the \u201cbest interpretation\u201d of the statute was that \u201cexpress consent\u201d is the only requirement imposed by the TCPA, even if the consent is obtained orally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, because Bradley provided oral consent to DentalPlans receive such to prerecorded messages when she signed up for her dental plan, she (and, the class) had no viable claims.  The court, accordingly, granted summary judgment on Bradley\u2019s individual claim and decertified the previously certified class action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bradley <\/em>decision continues an important trend for companies making telemarketing calls to consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we explained here<\/a>, when the Fifth Circuit decided Bradford<\/em>, the written consent requirement has long been thought of as one of the hallmarks of the FCC\u2019s regulatory regime and is often used by the plaintiff\u2019s bar to assert technical violations of the TCPA even where it is clear that a customer approved of such calls.  But the current trend shows that the underlying regulatory scheme is quickly eroding with each decision that passes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless, the decisions in Bradford<\/em> and Bradley<\/em> represent only the middle ground on these issues.  Other courts would go further and hold that Congress\u2019s entire delegation of any of its authority \u201crun[s] afoul of the nondelegation doctrine, since there are no delimitations on the discretion it grants the\u201d FCC.  McGonigle v. Pure Green Franchise Corp.<\/em>, No. 25-CV-61164, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8059, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2026).  Thus, the landscape of positions on such issues is wide ranging and changing by the day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result of this shifting landscape, corporate counsel, and companies engaged in telemarketing, should continue to monitor this blog to stay apprised of any updates as new decisions continue to modify the FCC\u2019s longstanding interpretation of the TCPA.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Anna Sheridan, and Ryan T. Garippo Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 On March 20, 2026, in Bradley, et al. v. DentalPlans.com, No. 20-CV-010904, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59569 (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2026), Judge Brandan Hurson of the U.S. District Court for District of Maryland decertified a certified class … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Maryland Federal District Court Finds That Oral Consent Is Sufficient To Make Telemarketing Calls Using A Prerecorded Voice”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[89],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,133,127],"class_list":["post-2835","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-tcpa-class-action-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":133,"user_id":711,"is_guest":0,"slug":"asheridan","display_name":"Anna Sheridan","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/04\/sheridananna-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":127,"user_id":692,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rgarippo","display_name":"Ryan Garippo","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/09\/garipporyan-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2835","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2835"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2835\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2835"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2835"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2835"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2835"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}