ConsentVox

A February 2026 federal appellate decision held that the communications regulator lacked authority to require written rather than oral prior express consent under the provision at issue. That ruling must not become a national or automatic forty-seven-state rule: circuit, claim, call purpose, technology, number, consent language, state law, do-not-call duties, revocation, and later authority all matter. ConsentVox evaluates each proposed outbound call against a versioned policy approved by qualified counsel. It separates person and number identity, jurisdiction evidence, campaign and seller, call purpose, consent source and exact language, scope, written or oral form, revocation, suppression, disclosure, synthetic-audio marking, approval, dialing request, provider acknowledgment, call event, and outcome. Unresolved rules or evidence block the call. European interaction disclosure and machine-readable marking are separate tracks with different supplied milestones. A signed receipt proves retained-record integrity, not valid consent, legal compliance, disclosure comprehension, admissibility, or litigation defense. Four related interfaces remained unverified.

The compliance, legal, operations, or platform leader at an agency or provider running outbound AI-assisted voice campaigns.