North Carolina Becomes First State to Propose Its Own One-to-one Consent Law

And so it begins. As many anticipated after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) One-to-one consent rule in the IMC v. FCC case in January, it appears states intend to start taking matters into their own hands, and North Carolina is the first out of the gate. Just as the U.S. Supreme Court’s narrow definition of an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) in its Facebook v. Duguid decision prompted states to pass laws introducing the broader “automated system” term, we may now be seeing a similar trend—this time focused on how consent is obtained and structured. It would stand to reason such a potential movement would begin with one of the 27 states whose Attorneys General joined a recent amicus brief (North Carolina was one of those states) filed in support of a petition requesting the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reconsider the rule. (It should be noted that the FCC itself recently filed a response opposing these motions and the Court subsequently denied the motions.)

North Carolina has introduced House Bill 936, which proposes sweeping changes to the state’s telemarketing laws, including the replacement of some terms with new terms and definitions, strengthened consent requirements, and enhanced enforcement tools aimed at targeting illegal robocallers. It is important to note, of course, that HB 936 remains a proposed bill at this stage—it must still navigate the full legislative process, which can be lengthy and uncertain, and, even if enacted, it could face legal challenges similar to those brought against the FCC’s rule. If enacted, it would take effect on October 1, 2025.

A New Definition of Consent—And a Big One

Perhaps the most significant element of the bill is the introduction of the term “prior express written consent” (and its definition) which would replace “express invitation or permission” throughout the statute. The bill borrows heavily from the FCC’s One-to-one consent rule in its proposed definition, which would require that prior express written consent for a call or text:

1. Shall be to a single person;
2. May be obtained only after clear and conspicuous disclosure that the telephone subscriber will receive future calls on behalf of a specific seller;
3. Is effective if the form of signature is recognized as a valid signature under applicable federal or State law, and
4. Is nontransferable.

This specificity captures the 1:1 consent intent from the FCC’s vacated rule but also adds another interesting element, that of “non-transferability.” As written, this could significantly impact lead generation even further. It appears to raise the possibility that consent must be given directly to the seller, not to a lead generator who then passes it along, meaning a consumer would have to be matched to a seller to whom the consumer gives direct consent, fundamentally altering current lead-sharing practices.

Other Proposed Provisions

HB 936 also proposes:

• Replacing the terms “Automatic dialing and recorded message player” and “Unsolicited telephone call” with:
  • “Robocall” – defined to include calls using artificial or prerecorded voices and spam/scam text messages sent via messaging apps (so think, WhatsApp, Telegram, etc.)
  • “Robocaller” – the person or entity initiating such robocalls.
• Adding “robocalls” into the scope of existing call time restrictions, clearly prohibiting such calls before 8:00 AM or after 9:00 PM.
• New consumer protection provisions that prohibit:
  • Use of misleading caller ID information,
  • Impersonation of government officials,
  • Threats, intimidation, or use of profane language during calls.

Exemptions Maintained

The bill would retain key exemptions under existing law, including those for Established Business Relationships (EBR) and tax-exempt nonprofit organizations.

Enforcement

The North Carolina Attorney General would retain enforcement authority, including the ability to investigate complaints and bring civil actions. But, under the bill, if a single robocall violates multiple provisions of the law, penalties may be assessed for each individual violation, potentially compounding the legal exposure from a single call. There’s also a rebuttable presumption that anyone with a North Carolina area code is a state resident—a measure common in state mini-TCPA laws of late.

Conclusion

North Carolina’s HB 936 could be the “canary in the coal mine” for a new wave of state-level one-to-one consent and robocall regulations. The bill clearly echoes the FCC’s vacated one-to-one consent framework by establishing that valid consent must be provided by a single person to receive calls/texts on behalf of a specific seller, and that such consent is nontransferable. Lead generators as well as businesses that rely on third-party lead generation would be well advised to keep a close eye on this bill’s progress, as will CompliancePoint. It will be interesting indeed to see what becomes of this and any similar bills and what legal challenges could follow.

CompliancePoint has a team of marketing compliance professionals who can help ensure your outreach campaigns comply with the TCPA, TSR, and all applicable state laws. Contact us at connect@compliancepoint.com to learn more about our services.