JUST SAYING: Pennsylvania AG Signed Onto NPRM Position that Differs From Consent Order It Imposed on Fluent and I am Scratching My Head

So as I reported yesterday 28 AGs got together and submitted a really aggressive comment to the FCC in connection with the pending NPRM on the “lead generation loophole.”

OH NO! 28 State AGs Just Weighed in on the FCC’s NPRM and a Certain Founder of our Nation is Grumpy About It…

Specifically, the AGs argued that consent has to be given on a “one to one” basis–meaning that a separate consent form is required for every seller that may call a consumer.

The position is legally baseless in my opinion–and the R.E.A.C.H. reply comment pretty much dismantles it— but when 28 AGs say something you have to take it seriously.

So I got to thinking about the recent Fluent Consent Order–which was entered into with the PA AG’s office, a signatory to the new FCC reply comment–and wouldn’t you know it, the AG did NOT make Fluent abide by a one-to-one disclosure process.

Indeed, the consent order specifically recognizes that multiple sellers can be listed on a form:

See– “specific party or parties.” (You can read the whole C.O. here: Fluent Consent Order)

But if the law requires only a single seller (party) then why would the PA AG’s office tell Fluent it could break the law in a consent order?


On the other hand, the consent order does require Fluent to ditch hyperlinks–which is consistent with one possible outcome of the FCC’s NPRM. So that is definitely something to keep an eye on.

Anyway we will continue to monitor developments around the NPRM and AG action closely for you.


Leave a Reply