With the inauguration of Donald Trump and the leadership shakeup at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the regulatory landscape is shifting.

Brendan Carr has replaced Jessica Rosenworcel as FCC chair, and a new Republican majority now controls the Commission. However, one impending issue—the FCC’s one-to-one consent rule—threatens to harm everyday Americans more than it helps. Set to take effect in January 2025, this rule risks inundating consumers with more spam calls, eliminating American jobs, and limiting consumers’ ability to communicate with trusted digital platforms.

The FCC claims its rule is designed to protect consumers from unwanted calls. But in practice, it creates a bureaucratic nightmare for American businesses and opens the door for foreign competitors to take over the market.

By requiring individual consent for every seller, compliance costs will skyrocket, leaving many U.S. businesses unable to operate. Small call centers will close, larger firms will move offshore, and consumers will bear the brunt of these changes.

If you think telemarketing calls are bad now, just wait. American companies must comply with U.S. regulations and will be held accountable when they don’t. Offshore operators, particularly in countries like India, have no such obligations.

When domestic businesses shut down due to the FCC’s burdensome rule, foreign call centers will flood the vacuum, increasing unwanted calls that U.S. regulators can’t control.

This is the ultimate irony: a rule designed to reduce telemarketing calls will likely worsen them. Consumers will face more spam from entities that don’t play by the rules and operate beyond the reach of U.S. enforcement.

The one-to-one consent rule will devastate the $3.1 billion U.S. lead generation industry, which connects consumers with the products and services they need. Platforms like NerdWallet and Credit Karma rely on lead generators to provide valuable comparison tools for everyday people.

However, compliance with the new rule will be so expensive, both from lost revenue and from compliance burdens, that many American companies must shut down or move operations overseas.

Small businesses, often the backbone of local economies, will be hit hardest. Jobs that once supported American families will disappear, leaving communities without critical sources of income. Meanwhile, offshore call centers will thrive, taking those jobs and leaving U.S. workers behind.

Consumers rely on digital platforms to make informed decisions about loans, insurance, and other financial products. The FCC’s rule disrupts this process by making it harder for businesses to operate comparison tools and connect with potential customers. Imagine logging onto your favorite platform only to find fewer options, less transparency, and a clunky experience caused by unnecessary regulatory hurdles.

Beyond financial services, this rule could upend the operations of platforms like Angi, Sittercity, Upwork, and Fiverr—all of which help connect everyday people with essential services and gig work.

Could Uber be next? Will drivers and riders need explicit consent to communicate with each other? Uber is essentially a lead generator at its core, facilitating a connection between riders and drivers. Lyft will also fall prey to this regulatory capture. The FCC’s rule risks undermining the framework of the modern American economic ecosystem, creating confusion and inefficiency where none existed before.

This means less choice, higher costs, and more frustration for consumers. Instead of empowering people with better tools to manage their financial lives, the FCC is making it harder for them to access valuable services.

The FCC should focus on enforcing existing rules against bad actors rather than penalizing legitimate businesses. Consumers already have tools to block unwanted calls, such as call-blocking apps and the national Do Not Call registry. Strengthening these measures and targeting rogue operators would strike a better balance than imposing burdensome new regulations that harm everyday Americans.

At its core, this is a question of economic sovereignty and consumer protection. Why should American businesses be forced to shut down while foreign operators exploit the system? Why should U.S. consumers be vulnerable to offshore call centers that ignore consent requirements altogether?

This rule isn’t just bad for businesses; it’s terrible for consumers. It means more spam calls, fewer jobs, and less access to the tools people rely on every day. By driving legitimate businesses out of the market, the FCC is undermining the very protections it claims to support.

Let’s keep American companies in the game. Let’s protect jobs, consumers, and innovation by rejecting unnecessary regulation that only weakens our economy. The FCC’s one-to-one consent rule isn’t just bad policy—it’s a disservice to Americans.

_______________
Patrick M. Brenner is the founder and president of the Southwest Public Policy Institute, a nonprofit research institute in the American Southwest dedicated to promoting better living through better policy.