The law and society occasionally impute consent to an agent despite a clear lack of actual consent. A common type of such 'fictitious consent' is constructive consent. In this practice, we treat an agent as if she consented to Φ because she did ψ. By examining how constructive consent operates in law (monitoring inmate phone calls and blood alcohol concentration testing on unconscious drivers) and daily life (physical contact in public spaces), I show that our treatment of agents in these cases bears no normatively relevant resemblance to consent because it is grounded in values and concerns other than autonomy. Thus, the practice may diminish the very autonomy consent proper seeks to promote. Hiding this potential for conflict creates the risk moral concerns will not be appropriately balanced when deciding on the permissibility of an action. We thus ought to be explicit that such cases don't involve consent and its common justification.