A lot of attention on the TCPA’s express consent rules right now following the Supreme Court’s McKesson ruling.

Specifically, will the current paradigm of express written consent vs. presumed express consent for marketing vs. informational calling, respectively, survive.

Not clear.

What is clear, however, is that finance companies buying auto paper have a very good chance of enforcing consent provisions embedded in RISCs and other buy-sell agreements.

For instance, in Thigpen v. Westlake Services, LLC 2025 WL 1787456 (D. N.M. June 27, 2025) the Defendants were granted judgment on a TCPA claim where the plaintiff had signed a RISC containing a consent clause.

Per the ruling:

Plaintiff purchased a 2008 Dodge Ram 3500 from Gold Star Motors LLC on March 2, 2022. He signed a Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement that was immediately assigned to Westlake. Plaintiff made timely payments at first, but eventually defaulted and began receiving bills including late charges and interest accruals–although Plaintiff denies being late on payments.

Plaintiff then began to receive prerecorded voicemails, text messages and automated collection calls. He sued Westlake under the TCPA.

However the Court noted that the RISC contained a consent provision authorizing the calls:

The undisputed material facts demonstrate that Plaintiff consented to be contacted with artificial or prerecorded voices when he signed the original Contract. Under the clearly labeled heading “Telephone Monitoring and Calling,” Plaintiff agreed that “[Defendant] may from time to time make calls or texts to [Plaintiff] using prerecorded/artificial voice messages or through the use of an automatic dialing device at any telephone number [Plaintiff] provides to [Defendant] in connection with [Plaintiff’s] account, including a mobile telephone number….” Despite Plaintiff’s arguments otherwise, Plaintiff expressly consented to calls from artificial or prerecorded voices or the use of an automatic dialing system.

Nice right?

It may seems straightforward but rulings of this sort are actually fairly rare as Plaintiff’s attorneys tend to focus on marketing claims as opposed to informational, making it difficult to collect a body of law enforcing adhesion terms. But here’s a data point!

Particularly important for those making collection or servicing calls to note the language used here and adopt something similar. With McKesson seemingly destroying the old “presumed consent” rule for informational/collection calls folks will need to fall back on contractual provisions like these to assure compliance.