Kingsfield
Two products How it works PII Tokenizer Writing
Connect the Judge
Home › Research › Telecommunications › TCPA consent for autodialed cell calls
Kingsfield · Research · Telecommunications

Does the TCPA require prior express consent to make autodialed or prerecorded calls to a cell phone?

Published 2026-06-23 · U.S. federal law

Section 227(b)(1)(A) makes it unlawful to call a cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice without the called party's prior express consent.

The answer

The consent rule

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) makes it unlawful to make any call, other than for emergency purposes or with the prior express consent of the called party, using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to a cellular telephone service. The prohibition turns on the technology used to place the call and the absence of consent.

Private right of action

Section 227(b)(3) gives a person a private right of action to recover actual monetary loss or $500 in damages for each violation, whichever is greater, and permits a court to treble damages for willful or knowing violations. This statutory-damages structure drives most TCPA litigation exposure.

The judged input

What the AI drafted

Submitted to the judge

This is an excerpt from a draft TCPA compliance advisory memo — the kind of work product a lawyer generates with a legal-AI drafting tool, then has to stand behind. Kingsfield does not write it; it rules on the citations the model put in it. This draft cites two authorities; one of them is wrong.

AI draft excerpt — TCPA compliance advisory memo
The Company plans a marketing campaign that places prerecorded voice messages and autodialed calls to customer cell phone numbers. Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), it is unlawful to use an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to call a cellular telephone service absent prior express consent of the called party. We advise the Company that it must obtain documented prior express consent before dialing any cell number in the campaign; the duty to capture and retain that consent record is governed by 47 U.S.C. § 222. We recommend a consent-tracking process tied to each number on the call list.

The judge ruled on every citation as the draft used it — it accepted 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) and rejected 47 U.S.C. § 222. Here is why.

The verdict

How Kingsfield ruled

Ruled 2026-06-23

Each citation in the draft above was submitted to the Kingsfield judge and ruled against the primary-law corpus — Accept, Reject, or Inconclusive, per citation. These are live verdicts, not editorial. Each card shows the claim the draft made and the verbatim authority the verdict was rendered against.

Accept47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)

The draft claimed: It is unlawful to make any call, absent an emergency purpose or the prior express consent of the called party, using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to a cellular telephone service.

“§ 227(a)(1) The term “automatic telephone dialing system” means equipment which has the capacity—”

Cite found; proposition supported by the cited text.

Reject47 U.S.C. § 222

The draft claimed: Section 222 governs the consent a caller must obtain before placing autodialed or prerecorded marketing calls to a consumer's cellular telephone.

Cite found, but the cited text does not support the claim. 47 U.S.C. 222 governs a carrier's duty to protect customer proprietary network information (CPNI); the consent requirement for autodialed and prerecorded calls to cell phones is in the TCPA at 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A). Regenerate with the correct authority.

Run your own work through the judge

Kingsfield rules on every citation, quote, and proposition your AI produces, against the primary law we cover. Accept, Reject, or Inconclusive, per citation, with a signed Audit Capsule.

Connect the Judge See the architecture

This page is legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The draft shown is an illustration of a typical AI answer; verdicts reflect the cited authority in the Kingsfield corpus as of the ruling date shown above.

Kingsfield

The judge for legal AI.
A WalkerNash Development LLC product.

© 2026 WalkerNash Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Built in the United States. No third-party trackers.
Product
  • Two products
  • How it works
  • Audit Capsule
  • Practice areas
  • Cloud Judge · MCP
  • PII Tokenizer
For Firms
  • Pricing
  • Privilege
  • DPA
  • Trust posture
  • Research
  • Verified attorneys
  • Status
Company
  • About WalkerNash
  • Crucible (compliance)
  • Writing
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Press
v0.9.4 · 2026.05.26kingsfield.ai