World421_OO_02

Our client, SLL, needs to understand whether their new customer marketing initiative is legal and what risks are likely.

In this initiative, SLL is creating marketing texts and sending them to customers based on the customers' fun facts. For example, an SLL client named Stori confirmed in a conversation with her loan officer that she gave her permission to receive these texts and is looking forward to receiving them. Her loan officer has the texts scheduled to go out on Fridays based on the the...

# Introduction
Senior Living Lending (“SLL”) is adopting a tailored marketing approach in which loan officers create individualized messages based on customer information. Under this model, loan officers draft and send marketing texts themselves, rather than relying on automated platforms. Based on the description provided, the messages are human-generated and manually sent. It appears that the loan officers obtain verbal consent from customers before marketing contact (based on the Stori example), though SLL's initiative does not appear to explicitly require this. Overall, this program can operate within legal guardrails, but SLL must remain attentive to certain risk areas. 

# Overview of the TCPA
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) regulates marketing calls and text messages. When a business uses SMS for marketing, it must generally obtain prior express written consent, disclose the nature of the messages, provide opt-out methods, and maintain consent records. 

These strict requirements apply when messages are sent using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS). The TCPA defines an ATDS as equipment with the capacity to store or produce phone numbers through a random or sequential number generator and dial those numbers automatically. Importantly, regardless of the technology used, businesses may not send marketing messages to numbers listed on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry.

# Application to SLL’s Customized Outreach
Under SLL’s program, loan officers learn customer preferences and create unique marketing messages. In the scenario described, Stori verbally consented to receive messages and expressed interest in receiving tailored marketing based on her favorite cheesecake recipe. The message she received was drafted and manually sent by her loan officer.

These facts support two conclusions:
1.	Customers likely provide verbal consent and expect the messages.
2.	The message was not sent using automated technology and therefore falls outside the TCPA’s ATDS-related written consent requirements.

Based on the program’s current design, SLL’s individualized, human-generated messages are likely proper. Possible risks to watch out for include:
-	Transition to automated platforms as SLL’s business evolves
-	Customer’s denying verbal consent and lack of adequate written consent to substantiate prior consent
-	Contacting customer numbers that are listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry

# Forward-Looking Considerations
Although SLL’s current model appears compliant, the following safeguards are recommended:
1.	Maintain written consent: Even if not technically required, written consent provides clear documentation of permission and ensures consistency across the organization.
2.	Train loan officers: As SLL scales, the custom approach may evolve or become more automated. Staff must understand TCPA requirements so that any transition to automation triggers appropriate compliance measures.
3.	Check the Do-Not-Call Registry: Loan officers must verify customer numbers against the DNC list before sending any marketing communication.
4.	Protect privacy: General privacy obligations remain in effect. Messages should respect customer data, avoid sensitive hours, and follow consumer-friendly practices.

We remain available to support SLL as you operationalize this program and monitor future TCPA developments.