A pre-checked box isn’tconsent you can defend.

The FCC's one-to-one consent rule was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in January 2025 (IMC v. FCC), and the FCC reinstated its prior express written consent standard in August 2025. That standard is not uniform nationwide: in February 2026 the Fifth Circuit held in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control that the statute permits oral prior express consent, so the written-consent requirement is now jurisdiction-dependent. State mini-TCPAs may be stricter. Not legal advice; consent requirements are fact-specific.

Not under the FCC's written-consent definition. Under the FCC's telemarketing rules, prior express written consent means a written agreement bearing the signature of the person called that clearly authorizes the seller to deliver telemarketing messages by autodialer or artificial or prerecorded voice, to a number the signer designates, with a clear and conspicuous disclosure — including that the person is not required to sign as a condition of buying anything. A pre-checked box, or consent bundled into a 'submit' or terms-acceptance click, requires no affirmative act by the consumer, which is why this gate treats it as a gate-triggering evidence gap: it forces EVIDENCE GAP regardless of how good the rest of the form is. In the demo and the engine, unchecking that one box is the difference between EVIDENCE GAP and CONSENT-READY AS DESCRIBED. Courts have been reading the TCPA's consent requirement independently of the FCC since 2025, and in February 2026 the Fifth Circuit held the statute permits oral as well as written consent; this gate uses written consent as a conservative evidence standard, not as a determination that written consent is legally required for every communication. Confirm the federal and state requirements that apply to your specific channels with counsel.

The FCC has confirmed that AI-generated voices are 'artificial' voices within TCPA scope, so AI voice calls and automated marketing texts fall under the same TCPA consent framework as other autodialed or prerecorded marketing outreach. Marketing robocall and robotext consent requirements now require jurisdiction-, technology-, and campaign-specific analysis. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC's one-to-one consent restriction, and the Fifth Circuit's Bradford decision rejected the FCC's prior-express-written-consent requirement in the circumstances before it. Other courts, FCC rules, and state laws may produce different requirements. That's why this gate sits upstream of your dialer or your AI chat/SMS concierge: it checks that the form feeding those systems captured consent you can actually prove, including a clear disclosure that marketing calls/texts may be autodialed or use an artificial voice. Confirm the federal and state requirements that apply to your specific channels with counsel.

One verdict per form — CONSENT-READY AS DESCRIBED, FIX FIRST, or EVIDENCE GAP — plus, where a control is short, a single fix-first naming the highest-leverage control to change. You mark six weighted controls (affirmative unchecked opt-in, clear disclosure, disclosure proximity, written E-SIGN signature, retained per-consumer consent record, revocation/DNC & source diligence) and flag purchased leads with no provenance. A defective-capture gate hard-stops the three gate-triggering patterns: a non-affirmative opt-in, no retained consent record, or purchased leads with zero provenance. A program rollup grades all your forms together as READY TO CAPTURE, REMEDIATE, or DO NOT LAUNCH. It ships a workbook, a runnable Python engine that reproduces the verdict offline, two playbooks, and a seven-form worked sample.

Different layers. The Lead-Capture Page Kit grades the page's conversion design — message match, single goal, friction, trust — whether the form converts. This gate grades whether the consent that form captures is defensible — whether the opt-in is affirmative, disclosed, signed, and provable under the TCPA. A page can convert beautifully and still capture consent you could not prove later. Build and optimize the page there; clear its consent here before you wire it into anything that calls or texts.

No to both. It's a readiness aid that grades your own assessment of prior-express-written-consent readiness — not an opinion of counsel, not a certification, and not a safe harbor. The TCPA landscape is genuinely unsettled and enforced by private litigants: the Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC's one-to-one consent restriction, the Fifth Circuit's Bradford decision rejected the FCC's prior-express-written-consent requirement in the circumstances before it, courts have split on points like whether texts are 'calls,' and the revocation-all provision is delayed. The engine uses written consent as a conservative evidence standard, not as a determination that written consent is legally required for every communication, and stays date-agnostic, but you must confirm the federal and state requirements for your calls, texts, and AI voice/text agents and consult qualified counsel before you launch.