If I was a new realtor, here’s exactly what I’d do…

@wyattparker4061 says:

My net income after taxes was well over $280k for you pocket watchers out there. Hoping to make that number even larger this year. Wishing you an abundant 2025, lets crush it this year!

@pleaseuseturnsignals says:

…”on Friday, January 24, 2025, the last business day before the Rule was set to go in effect. Initially, the Commission, acting sua sponte, issued an order postponing the effective date of the One-to-One Consent Rule by 12 months — to January 26, 2026 — or until the date specified in a public notice after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issues a decision on the petition filed by the Insurance Marketing Coalition (IMC) challenging the Rule (whichever is sooner).[4] The Commission found that, given the advanced stage of the judicial proceedings in the Eleventh Circuit, the litigation risks presented by the Rule for texters and callers acting in good faith, and concerns about the industry’s readiness for immediate compliance with the Rule, it was in the interest of justice to postpone the effective date of the rule.[5]

The Eleventh Circuit did not leave folks waiting for long. That same Friday afternoon, the court issued an opinion finding that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority under the TCPA because the new consent restrictions in the Rule “impermissibly conflict with the ordinary statutory meaning of ‘prior express consent.’”[6] In particular, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the term “prior express consent” as used in the TCPA statute only requires a consumer to “clearly and unmistakably” state that they are willing to receive the robocall — and says nothing about requiring one-to-one consent.[7] Nor does it say anything about the consumer’s consent being limited to calls that are “logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted the consent.”[8] Thus, the requirements for a consumer to separately and independently consent to receive robocalls from each individual seller and for the robocalls to be “logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted the consent” were contrary to the plain meaning of the statute; thus, they were in excess of the Commission’s statutory authority to implement the TCPA.[9] What is more, rather than remand the matter back to the agency, the Court altogether vacated the One-to-One Consent Rule.[10]

As a result of these two actions, the Commission is back to square one and will need to decide whether to pursue any further action to revive the One-to-One Consent Rule as well as whether it can be done in light of the Eleventh Circuit’s holding. More importantly, the business community does not need to worry about compliance with the Rule and can continue operating under the status quo, which still requires obtaining express written consent for marketing outreaches using regulated technology…”
https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2025/01/federal-communications-commissions-one-one-consent-rule/