Federal district courts in Virginia, Texas, and Nevada have recently dismissed a series of lawsuits brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), finding that plaintiffs failed to show how the defendants were directly or indirectly responsible for the alleged robocalls.
The lawsuits accused various companies of violating the TCPA by placing non-emergency telemarketing calls using automated dialing systems or prerecorded voices without prior written consent, and by contacting individuals listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. However, in each case, the courts sided with the defense, ruling that the complaints did not sufficiently link the companies to the unlawful calls.
These recent cases underscore a critical threshold for TCPA litigation: plaintiffs must plausibly allege that the defendant either made the calls themselves or authorized a third party to do so on their behalf. Simply associating a defendant with a product or service promoted during the call is not enough.
Matthews v. Senior Life Insurance Company (E.D. Va. Apr. 22, 2025)
A Virgina federal court has dismissed a TCPA lawsuit where the plaintiff claimed he received repeated unsolicited calls marketing life insurance from Senior Life Insurance Company (SLIC). The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient link between the insurer and the alleged telemarketing activity.
Plaintiff alleged he received three scripted calls on August 26, 27, and 28, 2024. The calls, he claimed, promoted life insurance policies offered by SLIC and included questions aimed at determining his eligibility. Plaintiff also noted that his phone number had been listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry (DNC List) since August 31, 2021. He further alleged that during one of the calls, he spoke to an individual who identified as a SLIC employee, and despite expressing disinterest, the calls continued.
SLIC moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Plaintiff had failed to allege facts showing the company either placed the calls itself or was legally responsible for those who did. The court agreed, finding no evidence in the complaint to support a claim of direct liability. It emphasized that the mere fact the caller asked questions about SLIC's insurance products did not establish that SLIC had initiated the calls.
As for vicarious liability, the court held that Plaintiff had not alleged any facts suggesting an agency relationship between the caller and SLIC. Even the alleged conversation with a SLIC employee lacked corroborating details, such as a connection between the phone number used and the company itself.
The court ultimately dismissed the complaint without prejudice, giving Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint should additional facts come to light.
Gonzalez v. Savings Bank Mutual Life Insurance Company of Massachusetts (W.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2025)
A Texas federal court has dismissed a lawsuit brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act against The Savings Bank Mutual Life Insurance Company of Massachusetts (SBLI), finding that the plaintiff failed to plausibly connect the company to a series of unsolicited telemarketing calls.
Plaintiff alleged she received eight unwanted calls between February 2 and February 20, 2024, promoting life insurance products ultimately linked to SBLI. Her phone number had been listed on the National Do-Not-Call (DNC) Registry since March 2022. According to the complaint, each call featured a prerecorded voice stating, “Hi, this is Stephanie, I’m calling you from American Benefits.”
Plaintiff answered the fourth call and spoke with a telemarketer who did not disclose the entity on whose behalf they were calling but was promoting life insurance. She told the caller to stop contacting her. On February 20, 2024, she received an eighth call—this time from a number ending in -2986. Suspecting the same caller, she pretended to be her mother, "Norma," in order to learn more.
During that call, Plaintiff was asked qualifying questions and transferred to an agent named “Elsworth Rawlings,” who further verified her responses and then passed her to an SBLI employee named “Bell.” Bell approved the application, then transferred her back to Rawlings, who completed the process. The entire sequence was treated as one continuous interaction. A week later, on February 27, 2024, Plaintiff received an SBLI life insurance policy, signed by Rawlings.
In her complaint, Plaintiff asserted that the calls violated Section 227 of the TCPA and claimed that: (1) Rawlings was a licensed agent appointed by SBLI on February 20, 2024, to market and sell its insurance products; (2) SBLI and Rawlings coordinated applications via a phone system that enabled seamless transfers; and (3) SBLI appointed Rawlings with the expectation that he would make outbound calls to promote its offerings.
SBLI filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff failed to establish a legal basis for holding the company liable for the calls. The court agreed. It found no basis for direct liability, concluding that SBLI did not initiate the calls, “American Benefits,” not SBLI, was the identified caller.
The court also rejected the theory of vicarious liability. Under federal common law, agency can be established through actual authority, apparent authority, or ratification. The court ruled that Plaintiff did not allege facts showing that SBLI manifested assent for Rawlings or American Benefits to act on its behalf, nor did she demonstrate that SBLI had control over their telemarketing practices. Furthermore, the court found no indication that SBLI’s conduct during the calls would have led Plaintiff to reasonably believe the agents were acting as its representatives, nor that SBLI was aware of, or ratified, any unlawful behavior.
The court concluded that Plaintiff failed to show either direct or vicarious liability and granted SBLI’s motion to dismiss.
Usanovic v. Americana, L.L.C. (D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2025)
A Nevada federal district court has dismissed a putative class action lawsuit against Americana LLC, which operates under the trade name Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Nevada Properties (BHHS), finding the plaintiff failed to establish direct or vicarious liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227.
Plaintiff alleged that starting on February 14, 2023, she received multiple unsolicited telemarketing calls from BHHS-affiliated agents encouraging her to relist a recently expired property. Her cell phone number had been listed on the National Do-Not-Call (DNC) Registry since June 25, 2005. Plaintiff claimed that she informed the agents on several occasions that she was not interested and that her number was on the DNC List, but the calls continued.
Plaintiff filed suit under Section 227 of the TCPA, asserting that BHHS’s agents unlawfully contacted her and other putative class members without consent. In her complaint, she alleged that BHHS actively supports and encourages this outreach through training programs and materials such as the “Book of Everything,” which includes cold-call scripts, role-playing strategies, and guidance on using dialer vendors. Some of these vendors, she claimed, do not screen against the DNC List, and BHHS’s materials failed to instruct agents on DNC compliance.
BHHS moved to dismiss, contending that it could not be held liable under the TCPA for calls made by independent real estate agents. The court granted the motion, holding that BHHS neither made the calls directly nor exercised the kind of control necessary to establish an agency relationship.
The court reiterated the TCPA’s framework, which allows for liability based on (1) direct participation in unlawful calling or (2) vicarious liability under common law agency principles—actual authority, apparent authority, or ratification.
Here, the court found that BHHS did not directly initiate the calls; rather, individual agents did. While those agents allegedly identified themselves as being with BHHS, this alone was insufficient to establish BHHS’s liability. As for vicarious liability, the court found the plaintiff had failed to allege facts showing that BHHS manifested assent for the agents to act on its behalf or exercised sufficient control over their telemarketing practices.
