Claims

The lawsuit centers on Twilio’s alleged role in originating illegal robocall traffic and transmitting unlawful text messages. Despite numerous notifications from the plaintiff, Twilio purportedly continued to send automated messages and calls without consent, using phone numbers registered to the company. These communications, which solicited various services, were allegedly sent through Twilio’s cloud-based platform, which automates the transmission of text messages and calls en masse.

The complaint details several key allegations against Twilio:

1. Illegal Robocalls and Text Messages: Twilio is accused of making hundreds of calls and sending numerous text messages to the plaintiff’s cell phone in violation of the TCPA. The company allegedly used automated systems to send these communications without obtaining prior express consent from the recipient.
2. Failure to Honor Do Not Call Registry: Despite the plaintiff’s phone number being registered on the Do Not Call Registry and repeated requests to stop the calls, Twilio allegedly ignored these notifications and continued its unsolicited communication practices.
3. Misrepresentation of Affiliation: The complaint also highlights instances where Twilio’s messages falsely implied affiliations with legitimate businesses, adding to the deceptive nature of the communications.
4. Involvement in Telemarketing Practices: Twilio’s automated platform, which enables the sending of bulk messages and calls, was central to the company’s alleged telemarketing practices. The plaintiff asserts that Twilio’s system automatically generates and dials numbers, constructs the messages, and sends them, making Twilio directly responsible for the TCPA violations.
5. Knowledge and Willful Conduct: The lawsuit claims that Twilio was fully aware of the illegal activities and did nothing to stop them, thereby acting knowingly and willfully in violation of the TCPA. The plaintiff allegedly communicated with an attorney and paralegal at the company and asked them to stop communicating with him.

The plaintiff seeks statutory damages, equitable relief to halt Twilio’s illegal conduct, and compensation for the invasion of privacy, harassment, and disruption caused by the unsolicited communications.

Learn More.

The Background: The plaintiff allegedly received 56 calls from six different companies between July 2021 and February 2023. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendants violated numerous provisions of the TCPA, including using an autodialer, using an artificial or pre-recorded message, falsifying Caller ID, and more.

The plaintiff alleged that Family First Insurance is an Insurance Marketing Organization that sold leads and access to automated telephone dialing systems to help agents reach potential customers. Three of the other defendants — United of Omaha Life Insurance, Americo Financial Life, and Great Western Life — allegedly sell insurance products offered by Family First. Those three companies are allegedly aware that Family First allegedly engages in illegal telemarketing practices and still gave the company’s agents access to their systems and permission to use their trademarks.

• The plaintiff also named six individual defendants who are agents of Family First.
• The plaintiff alleged that Family First uses an ATDS to make its calls and that he received hundreds of calls. The plaintiff uses false, but unique identifying information to identify the source of subsequent illegal calls.

The Ruling: Family First attempted to argue that the plaintiff’s status as a professional plaintiff who invites calls for the purpose of filing lawsuits means he does not have standing to pursue this lawsuit. But Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan, determined the plaintiff does have standing because there is nothing in the constitution that exempts individuals from standing. In fact, doing so would require determining at which point a litigant becomes a professional plaintiff.

Judge Goldsmith goes into great detail on each of the 13 counts and which of the offending phone calls are subject to each count and makes a ruling on each. The only count to survive the motion to dismiss against all defendants was the first count — the use of an ATDS.

Learn More.

The Background: The plaintiff put his name on the defendant’s Do Not Call list before July 2020. The owners of two agencies hired a company that subcontracted with another company that placed the calls at issue — five in total.

• The two agencies were allowed to initiate their own marketing campaigns and were allowed to use non-contracted telemarketers as long as those telemarketers followed the defendant’s Do Not Call policy.
• The owner of Transfer Kings, the company hired by the two agencies, did not tell either that he had subcontracted the work out to another company, a lead generator called Atlantic Telemarketing.
• The defendant “strongly suggests” that the plaintiff entered his phone number and a pseudonym on a website that ended up being included in a list that was purchased by Transfer Kings or Atlantic Telemarketing. Whomever entered the name and phone number on the website had to consent to being contacted.
• Of the five calls, the plaintiff answered none of them, but on two occasions called the number back. The plaintiff said his name was Michael Johnson.
• The plaintiff admitted to using pseudonyms as a means of getting information about who was calling to get the calls to stop.

The Ruling: The defendant was unable to submit evidence to prove how it came to possess the plaintiff’s phone number, which means it could not disprove the plaintiff’s argument that he never gave written consent to be contacted, ruled Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

• Judge Gottschall then went into detail explaining why the defendant should be held vicariously liable for the calls in question.
• “Accordingly, the undisputed material summary judgment evidence establishes that: (1) Gilmond and Fleming were Allstate’s agents with actual authority to hire telemarketing vendors and appoint them as subagents; (2) they appointed Transfer Kings as a subagent; and (3) Transfer Kings appointed Atlantic as its subagent,” she wrote.

Learn More.

The Background: The plaintiff applied for a loan via the defendant’s website in 2017. As part of the application process, the plaintiff was presented with a screen that indicated he had read, understood, and consented to the language outlines in a number of policies and agreements, including the defendant’s Electronic Communications Policy and the Arbitration Agreement. All of the agreements were hyperlinked in blue font to the full text. The plaintiff checked a box that was labeled, “I Agree” and subsequently applied for the loan.

• The defendant sent the plaintiff two text messages — one in 2022 and one in 2023 — each attempting to sell financial services. The plaintiff had registered his phone number with the national Do Not Call registry and claims he did not provide consent or invite the text messages from the defendant and did not engage in any transactions with the defendant in the previous 18 months.

The Ruling: The plaintiff’s main argument is that he did not consent to receiving the text messages in question, but to Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that was not the issue. The issue is whether the plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement he consented to when he applied for the loan.

• The arbitration agreement indicated the plaintiff would arbitrate “any claim, dispute or controversy arising out of or related to .. (ii) [his] submission of information to SoFi in connection with any non-mortgage loan offered by SoFi [or] . (v) the disclosures provided to [him] by SoFi in connection with any non-mortgage loan offered by SoFi?”
• Had the plaintiff read the agreements, he would have noticed there was a provision that indicated individuals could change their TCPA preferences and could revoke consent by doing so on the defendant’s website. “Strong or weak, [the plaintiff’s] claims fall within the scope of the Agreement,” Judge Coleman wrote.
• The plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal in the case.

Learn More.

Scott Rhodes, who lives in Idaho and Montana, accused of making unlawful robocalls to consumers in a number of states. The calls displaced inaccurate Caller IDs, indicating they were local numbers, which induced recipients to answer the calls and listen to recorded messages. The messages were highly inflammatory and disturbing, according to prosecutors, and were directed at specific communities. One example was a spoofed robocall to hundreds of residents in an Iowa town in the aftermath of a woman’s murder.

The Federal Communications Commission traced the calls to Rhodes and imposed a $9.9 million penalty against him in January 2021. Later that year, the Justice Department sued Rhodes to recover the penalty and obtain an injunction. In October of last year, prosecutors moved for summary judgment, which was awarded last week, ordering Rhodes to repay the full amount of the fine.

“When persistent and malicious robocallers break the law, it takes strong partnerships like this one to bring them to justice,” said Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel of the FCC in a statement. “I thank the Justice Department team, in conjunction with FCC lawyers, for vigorously pursuing this penalty. I especially want to thank FCC investigators for tracking down this robocaller and building such a strong case. Our agency will continue to relentlessly pursue these unwanted robocalls and build on our multi-faceted collaborative approach with law enforcement agencies at home, as well as the growing partnerships we’re fostering with our counterparts abroad, so that we can quickly and effectively neutralize bad actors.”

The Background: The plaintiff, who phone number has been registered on the national Do Not Call list since 2007, received two calls and a text message from the defendant on September 16, 2022 that were marketing home equity loans and other products and services.

• The plaintiff contends it did not provide his number or consent to receiving calls and had no existing business relationship with the defendant.

The Ruling: At this stage of the proceedings, Judge Susan M. Brnovich of the District Court for the District of Arizona said its reasonable to infer that the plaintiff registered his number on the Do Not Call list.

• The defendant argued that it was impossible for the plaintiff to know the calls were solicitations because the plaintiff did not answer the calls, but the plaintiff countered that because he never provided his number to the defendant and the text message he received confirms that both the calls and the text were solicitations, and the judge agreed with the plaintiff.

• Judge Brnovich also agreed with the plaintiff that the defendant’s arguments about the class claims for a violation of the TCPA were premature. “Any challenge to damages cannot occur until after a verdict,” the judge wrote.
• Regarding the motion to strike the plaintiff’s class definition because it was too broad — the defendant said it failed to exclude calls made without consent and to individuals with an established business relationship — there are two other cases that certified classes based on roughly the same definition and whether the class can be certified in this case is “for a later motion,” the judge wrote.

Learn More.

The Background: The plaintiff filed a TCPA class action against the defendant, alleging she received seven text messages that she did not consent to receive. The plaintiff also had her number registered on the national Do Not Call list. The plaintiff asserts she never provided her number to the defendant, never had a relationship with the defendant, and never gave the defendant permission for any kind of telemarketing.

• The defendant filed the motion to dismiss, arguing the court in question — the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington — did not have jurisdiction and because the purported class is overbroad and involved individualized inquiries unsuitable for class resolution.

The Ruling: At the motion to dismiss stage of a proceeding, it’s the judge’s responsibility to resolve any factual disputes in the plaintiff’s favor. This means that as long as the plaintiff claimed to have received the text messages and did not provide consent, it doesn’t matter if the defendant has proof that the plaintiff signed up to receive them or not.

With respect to the personal jurisdiction issue, even though the defendant is based in Missouri, It allegedly sent text messages to a phone number associated with an address in Washington State, which was enough for Judge Stanley A. Bastian to rule the court had jurisdiction over the lawsuit.

• Judge Bastian also declined to rule on the defenses that the defendant make have to the class’s claims, saying it was too premature.

Learn More.

The Background: Over the course of two months in late 2019 and early 2020, the plaintiff received eight calls from the defendant. The plaintiff’s number had already been registered on the national Do Not Call registry and the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant stop calling him and add his number to their internal do not call list. The plaintiff even sent a registered letter to the defendant asking it to stop calling and sending text messages.

• The plaintiff originally filed this lawsuit in October 2020 and there was a lot of back and forth between then and now, including two amended complaints, a number of hearings and motions. It wasn’t until earlier this year that the plaintiff put everything together and filed a complaint that had everything Judge Karen Marston of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania needed to issue a ruling.

The Ruling: Given that this case has been proceeding for nearly four years and the defendant has never once attempted to involve itself, Judge Marston ruled the plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment.

• The plaintiff was seeking treble damages under the TCPA, alleging the defendant willfully violated the statute in continuing to call him.
• Given his attempts to stop receiving calls from the defendant, the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant was aware that the plaintiff did not consent to receiving the calls and that means the defendant willfully violated the TCPA, Judge Marston ruled.

Learn More.

The Background: The plaintiff received a call in September 2022 and was greeted by an artificial prerecorded voice that said “My name is Becky from Senior Benefits. How are you today?” The plaintiff replied, “Hello Robot. How are you?” The recording then proceeded to tell the plaintiff about the reason for the call and offered the opportunity to learn more.

• The plaintiff “played along” because he is a frequent recipient of these kinds of calls and wanted to put a stop to them. For that, he needed to determine the identity of the company that was calling him.
• The plaintiff stayed on the phone long enough to be transferred to three different individuals. The plaintiff asked the third representative to have his number placed on the defendant’s internal do not call list and to send him a copy of the company’s do not call policy. The representative did not ask for the plaintiff’s contact information, because she was not trained in the existence or usage of such a policy, according to the complaint.

The Claim: The technology that was used to make the call to the plaintiff has to be an ATDS because “it wold be illogical to dial a number manually, have Plaintiff answer the phone, and only then connect Plaintiff to a human being,” according to the complaint.

• The plaintiff accuses the defendant of violating Section 227 of the TCPA by sending calls to the plaintiff’s cell phone using an ATDS.
• Because the defendant made multiple calls to the plaintiff, it willfully and knowingly violated the TCPA, according to the complaint.
• The plaintiff also accuses the defendant of violating the TCPA by placing a call to the plaintiff’s residential phone, which was registered on the national Do Not Call registry.
• The defendant is also accused of violating the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

Learn More.

The Background: The plaintiff alleges the defendant hired a separate entity to place telephone solicitation calls to potential clients on behalf of the defendant — a law firm looking for individuals to participate in a Camp Lejuene claim. The plaintiff alleges to have received more than one of these types of calls and at least during one call, was transferred to the defendant, which attempted to market legal representation.

• The plaintiff claimed to have received these calls on her residential line without first providing express consent to the defendant. Because the calls were unsolicited, the plaintiff claims the defendant is vicariously liable as the entity that made the calls for violating the TCPA.
• The defendant attempted to argue that the plaintiff’s claims were insufficient to establish vicarious liability. The defendant also argued the plaintiff did not allege that the separate entity was acting on behalf of the defendant or that the plaintiff was transferred to the defendant during one of the phone calls. The defendant also argued that the allegations made by the plaintiff were untrue.

The Ruling: But the plaintiff did allege that the defendant directed the entity to make solicitation calls and that there is a formal agency relationship between the two companies, including a contract that governs the entity’s telemarketing on behalf of the defendant, noted Judge Ronnie L. White of the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

• The plaintiff also alleged the defendant set the criteria for leads and that the entity was responsible for transferring leads to the defendant.
• “In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that there was a formal agency relationship between Burger Law and Consumer Legal, or alternatively, that there was apparent authority and ratification, such that Burger Law may be held vicariously liable for Consumer Legal’s phone calls to Plaintiff,” Judge White ruled.

Learn More.