Companies are often sued not because they made the calls, but because someone else did. And when that “someone” is a third-party lead generator, plaintiffs need more than speculation to tie the defendant to the phone call. That was the key issue in Lightfoot v. SelectQuote, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-04673, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103026 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2025), where SelectQuote secured a win at the motion to dismiss stage by showing the call in question didn’t mention them at all.

TCPA class actions are notoriously expensive to defend—even when the claims are weak. With statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per call or text and the potential for nationwide class exposure, litigation costs escalate quickly. Simply reaching or opposing class certification can cost tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. It’s no surprise that many businesses consider TCPA insurance as a safety net. But is it worth it? In my experience, not always—and here’s why.

A newly unsealed federal indictment out of Philadelphia serves as a powerful reminder to everyone in the lead generation, sales, and telemarketing space: you are responsible for knowing who you are doing business with. That includes knowing your lead sources, scrutinizing your contracts, and perhaps most importantly, shutting things down when something feels off.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 68 allows a defendant to make a formal settlement offer to the plaintiff, including accrued costs. If the plaintiff accepts within 14 days, judgment is entered. If not, the offer is withdrawn. But if the plaintiff ultimately recovers less than what was offered, they may have to cover the defendant’s post-offer costs.

Sometimes, it’s important to have a legal reminder—much like reminding your kids to say “please” or “thank you” for the thousandth time. So, here’s your reminder: if you are using artificial intelligence (AI) to make calls or send texts, they are subject to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

In a last-minute decision, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it is delaying enforcement of its new “Click-to-Cancel” rule by 60 days. The rule, originally set to take effect today, May 14, will now be enforced starting July 14. If you sell subscriptions or auto-renewing services, now is the time to pay attention.

Back in February, I wrote about a significant development in a TCPA class action our firm is defending: a federal judge granted our request for bifurcated discovery. In my view, nothing shifts the dynamics and leverage early in a putative TCPA class action more than a court granting bifurcation.

In recent months, a growing trend has emerged: plaintiffs filing TCPA class actions that claim companies violated federal calling time restrictions by reaching out before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time, even when the person may have given consent.

California is once again leading the charge in shaping the future of privacy regulation. On May 1, 2025, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) released a new round of proposed rules under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), aimed at modernizing how companies handle consumer data, automated decisionmaking, and cybersecurity oversight.

Let’s say your child wants to download Minecraft. He’s prompted to enter a parent’s phone number before proceeding, and he puts in yours. Moments later, your phone buzzes with a text asking for parental consent. While this seems like a responsible move under the COPPA, you pause. You never agreed to receive that text. Does this comply with the TCPA?

If you're a parent, you've probably heard “Can I download this game?” more times than you can count. It may seem harmless, but behind that button lies a world of data collection—especially when the user is a child. To address this, the FTC rolled out major updates to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) on April 22, 2025, aiming to give parents greater control over how personal information is collected from children under 13 online.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a lawsuit against Uber, claiming the company misled customers about its Uber One subscription service. According to the FTC, Uber charged people without proper consent, exaggerated promised savings, and made it ridiculously hard to cancel despite advertising the service as “cancel anytime.”

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has officially bowed out of the fight to revive the TCPA’s one-to-one consent rule. In a filing on April 4, 2025, the Commission said it will not challenge the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in IMC v. FCC, which struck down the rule, and it will oppose any other efforts to bring it back.

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling and held that Move, Inc. (better known as Realtor.com) can’t compel a consumer into arbitration over a lawsuit claiming violations of the TCPA.

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is keeping a lot of lawyers busy these days, and not just in California. We’ve seen clients receive demand letters from California plaintiffs' firms claiming that the use of third-party cookies, pixels, and other tracking technology on their websites violates CIPA by functioning as a “trap and trace” device.

This morning, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced it is delaying part of its consent revocation rule, specifically Section 64.1200(a)(10), until April 11, 2026.

Imagine this: your company calls a long-time customer, only to find out their phone number was reassigned. Now you’re facing a TCPA class action with potential damages in the millions. You had no idea the number changed hands, but it doesn’t matter.

Dismissing a TCPA lawsuit early is no small feat. The recent case of Jubb v. CHW Grp., Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59172 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2025), highlights how easily plaintiffs can plead both direct and vicarious liability, keeping businesses entangled in litigation.

In a case that could have nationwide implications, the Eastern District of Michigan has ruled that individuals can sue for caller ID violations under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

If you’ve ever worked in sales, marketing, or compliance, you’ve probably heard: “You can call someone on the federal “do-not-call” list if you have an established business relationship (EBR), i.e., a purchase within the past 18 months or an inquiry within the past 3 months.” But state laws often have their own, much stricter time frames.