The underlying dispute centers on winback calls — prerecorded messages DentalPlans.com placed to former subscribers of Cigna-Health and Life Insurance Company dental discount plans, urging them to repurchase after their memberships expired. Lead plaintiff Deborah Bradley, whose plan expired December 1, 2019, received ten such calls between December 3, 2019, and February 26, 2020, according to DentalPlans' records. She sued under 47 U.S.C. § 227, alleging the calls were unauthorized telemarketing robocalls, and the district court had previously certified a class and denied summary judgment on the theory that the FCC's prior express written consent standard applied and that a genuine dispute existed over whether Bradley had met it.
DentalPlans moved to reconsider after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025), arguing that those decisions stripped the FCC's prior express written consent gloss from the statute's plain prior express consent language. Judge Brendan A. Hurson agreed. Applying independent statutory interpretation rather than agency deference, he held that Congress required only prior express consent, and that the FCC's 2012 regulation imposing a writing requirement for telemarketing calls exceeded the agency's delegated authority to implement the statute.
The opinion draws on two circuit decisions reaching the same conclusion. The Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025), held that the TCPA requires only prior express consent and not something more burdensome. The Fifth Circuit in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc., 167 F.4th 809 (5th Cir. 2026), held that contrary to the FCC's regulation, Congress permits either written or oral consent for any auto-dialed or pre-recorded call, as the TCPA specifically permits such calls if the caller has the prior express consent of the called party. Judge Hurson also noted that the Fourth Circuit has not spoken directly on the TCPA delegation question, but found guidance in United States v. Kokinda, 146 F.4th 405 (4th Cir. 2025), which the court read as underscoring that agency interpretive authority requires a specific congressional delegation — one the court concluded is absent in the TCPA context.
Turning to the facts, the court held that Bradley had provided the requisite prior express consent during her November 2018 sign-up call, when she orally agreed to receive calls made with an automatic dialing system or prerecorded message after a DentalPlans representative explained the calls would be used to keep her updated with any plan information. Because the TCPA's prohibition in § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) turns on how a call is made — with an autodialer or prerecorded voice — not on whether it is telemarketing or informational, Bradley's oral consent covered the winback calls. DentalPlans was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Decertification followed. With summary judgment granted to the defendant on the lead plaintiff's claim, the court held class certification was no longer appropriate and granted the motion to decertify the class, which DentalPlans estimated at 57,240 members. The claim against co-defendant Cigna-Health and Life Insurance Company, brought solely on a vicarious liability theory, remains unresolved; the court ordered the parties to file a joint status report by March 26, 2026, on how the case proceeds against Cigna.