By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Ryan T. Garippo
Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 3, 2026, in Card, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., No. 26-CV-00433, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201636 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2026), Judge Catherine Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed a putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA””), on the basis that § 227(c)(5) of the statute does not extend to text messages. The decision follows the Seventh Circuit’s recent ruling in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, 182 F.4th 532 (7th Cir. 2026) and represents the first district court within the Fourth Circuit to hold that a text message is not a “telephone call” within the meaning of § 227(c)(5).
Case Background
On May 11, 2026, Plaintiff Shawn Card (“Plaintiff” or “Card”) sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. (“Reynolds”) under the TCPA claiming the company violated the national do-not-call registry’s requirements. Because Plaintiff alleged his phone number was registered on the national-do-not-call registry, allegedly received unwanted text messages from Reynolds, and supposedly never consented to receive those text messages, he claimed that Reynolds violated § 227(c)(5) of the TCPA.
In the complaint, Plaintiff also sought to represent a class of similarly situated individuals who also received text messages that allegedly violated the TCPA’s long-standing prohibition on telephone calls to numbers on the national do-not-call registry. Plaintiff specifically relied on § 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, which purports to create a private right of action for an individual “who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection.”
Reynolds moved to dismiss and argued that § 227(c)(5) does not apply to text messages. Plaintiff opposed that motion.
The Court’s Decision
Judge Eagles found the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Steidinger persuasive and dismissed the complaint because text messages “do not fall within the private right of action created by § 227(c)(5).” Card, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201636, at *3.
Judge Eagles explained § 227(c)(5) references a “telephone call” and not a “telephone solicitation,” as used elsewhere in the statute, and which is expressly defined to include telephone messages. This decision demonstrated that “Congress intended ‘telephone call’ in § 227(c)(5) to have a narrower scope.” Id. Thus, the structure and text of the TCPA supported this interpretation.
In addition, Judge Eagles also took care to note that – prior to McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, 606 U.S. 146, 168 (2025) – most courts had presumed that § 227(c)(5) applied to text messages based largely on the Federal Communications Commission’s (the “FCC”) regulations. But after McKesson, those cases are no longer good law because that case “changed the standard for judicial deference to agency statutory interpretation and called into question such decisions relying on the FCC’s interpretation.” Id. at *4.
Finally, Judge Eagles also rejected the approach adopted by the courts that have held the term “telephone call” encompasses text messages, such as Taha v. Momentive Software, Inc., 2026 WL 974297, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2026), which reasoned that “had Congress intended to eliminate textual communications from § 227(c)(5) it would have used the phrase ‘voice call,’ rather than ‘telephone call.’” Judge Eagles, however, noted that “the inverse is also true; if it had been the intent to include all types of communications, Congress more simply could have used the broader term ‘call’ as it did in §227(b), rather than ‘telephone call’ as it did in § 227(c)(5).” Id. at *6.
As a result, Judge Eagles concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a claim and became the first district court judge in the Fourth Circuit to conclude that § 227(c)(5) does not cover text messages.
Implications For Companies
The Card decision is significant for the growing split in authority as to whether the private right of action codified at § 227(c)(5) covers text messages. Card is the first court in the Fourth Circuit to hold that such text messages are not actionable. Indeed, there are now district courts in five federal circuits – including the entire Seventh Circuit – that hold text messages are not covered by this section of the statute. A chart summarizing this authority is depicted below.
Federal Circuit
Sample Opinion
1st Circuit
⮽
2nd Circuit
⮽
3rd Circuit
⮽
4th Circuit
Card v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201636 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2026)
5th Circuit
⮽
6th Circuit
Stockdale v. Skymount Prop. Grp., LLC, 825 F. Supp. 3d 622 (N.D. Ohio 2026)
Rush v. Selectquote Ins. Servs., Inc., 2026 WL 2495598 (W.D. Mo. July 30, 2026)
9th Circuit
⮽
10th Circuit
⮽
11th Circuit
See, e.g., Davis v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2025)
On the other hand, there are district courts in the First, Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits that have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs’ bar on this issue with no decisions ruling in favor of corporate defendants in those circuits. There are no district courts in the Tenth Circuit that have analyzed this issue. And the common wisdom is that Howard v. Republican National Committee, 164 F.4th 1119 (9th Cir. 2026) decided this issue for the entire Ninth Circuit.
One of the most interesting parts of Card is that Judge Eagles’s opinion suggests that the issue is still live in the Ninth Circuit. Howard was decided in the context of a § 227(b)(3) claim. Thus, when Judge Eagles suggested that the term “any call” in § 227(b)(3) is a “broader term” than was used in § 227(c)(5), it also suggests that there may be some daylight between Howard and the growing number of district courts that hold §227(c)(5) does not cover text messages. Card, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201636, at *6.
While this decision is undoubtedly a positive development for corporate counsel, we are not yet at the stage where companies can consider revising their text messaging programs. The new decisions are coming in rapidly and the landscape is changing quickly. Nonetheless, the Card decision provides corporate defendants with a powerful tool to challenge putative § 227(c)(5) class actions, premised on the receipt of text messages, particularly in the Fourth Circuit. As a result, companies should continue to raise this argument and monitor this blog to stay on top of this growing split in authority.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Ryan T. Garippo, and Brett A. Bohan
Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 18, 2026, in Moore, et al. v. Club Exploria, LLC, No. 25-2721, 2026 WL 2409841 (7th Cir. Aug. 18, 2026), Chief Judge Michael Brennan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The Seventh Circuit held that a defendant’s conduct, even prior to class certification, may support an inference that it waived its right to compel arbitration of putative class member’s claims. This ruling is significant for companies asserting an arbitration defense in a pending class action as preserving the right to compel arbitration can result in significant procedural complications.
Case Background
Club Exploria, LLC (“Exploria”) owns and manages vacation properties. To promote one of its properties, Exploria contracted with third-party vendors to run a telemarketing campaign. These vendors purchased the phone numbers of individuals who had agreed to receive sales calls which had been generated through various websites. Exploria used that list to call tens of thousands of potential customers using a prerecorded voice, including Plaintiff George Moore (“Plaintiff” or “Moore”).
In April 2019, Moore sued Exploria under § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA and claimed that he received these prerecorded calls without his consent. Over the next four years, Exploria filed pleadings with affirmative defenses, engaged in class-wide discovery, filed motions on the merits, and opposed class certification. After the class was certified, however, Exploria filed more motions, including a request to reopen discovery and to amend its answer to add additional affirmative defenses. In its third amended answer, Exploria stated that it sought to add an affirmative defense based on arbitration agreements with the class members. The district court denied this request and explained that the defense “was clearly waived by not bringing it up before now.” Id.
Thereafter, class notice was issued and Moore moved for summary judgment. But two months after briefing finished on Moore’s summary judgment motion, Exploria moved to compel arbitration and stated that 1,026 of the 66,682 class members had entered into mandatory individual arbitration agreements with the company. Exploria also explained that up to 70% of the class may be subject to similar agreements. The district court “ruled that Exploria had waived [the] arbitration defense” and “also granted summary judgment to Moore.” Id. at *2. Exploria appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The Seventh Circuit’s Ruling
On appeal, Chief Judge Brennan, writing for the Seventh Circuit, addressed three issues: (1) the appellate standard of review for orders denying motions to compel arbitration; (2) whether a court may consider a defendant’s pre-certification conduct in evaluating waiver; and (3) whether the district court clearly erred in finding waiver on the facts of this case.
First, the Seventh Circuit took the opportunity to clarify the standard of review for such cases as the case law was “in shambles” and highly conflicting. Id. at *3 (quoting Al-Nahhas v. 777 Partners LLC, 129 F. 4th 418, 430 (7th Cir. 2025) (Easterbrook, J., concurring)). To resolve the conflict, the Seventh Circuit turned to the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U.S. 387, 395-96 (2018) which explains that “[m]ixed questions [of law and fact] are not all alike.” Under that standard, where a district court is required to “expound on the law” the standard of review is de novo, but if the “decision does not announce a new legal rule, waiver decisions should be reviewed for clear error.” Moore, 2026 WL 2409841, at *4 (quotations omitted). The Seventh Circuit thus “overrule[d] the caselaw that does not follow [this] guidance,” particularly as to the case law that indicated that there is a per se rule that de novo review is the standard, but “only as to the applicable standard of review and to the extent [the cases] are inconsistent with this opinion.” Id.
Second, the Seventh Circuit considered whether a defendant’s pre-certification conduct could support an inference of waiver. “Waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’” Id. at *5 (quoting Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411, 417 (2022)). The Seventh Circuit held that – although the issue was not free from dispute – that “a defendant’s pleadings, conduct during class-related discovery, and arguments in opposition to class certification are relevant to the waiver decision.” Id. at *6. “Arbitration agreements with putative class members should be produced during class-related discovery and in opposition to class certification. The number and variety of such agreements impact the district court’s Rule 23 analysis.” Id. “[I]f a diligent defendant intends to compel arbitration after class certification, it cannot do so promptly if those agreements have not been produced. Asking to reopen discovery shows a lack of diligence.” Id. Thus, the Seventh Circuit concluded that such conduct is relevant to the waiver inquiry.
Third, on the specific facts of this case and because the “legal principle [was] settled,” the Seventh Circuit reviewed the “waiver decision . . . for clear error.” Id. at *7. Here, the parties engaged in two years of class-related discovery and developed no evidence of arbitrability. Similarly, when class certification was briefed, the opposition made “no mention of arbitration.” Id. Thus, it was immaterial that “as much as 70% of the putative class [may] be subject to such agreements.” Id. “If Exploria intended to move to compel arbitration, it should have raised the issue of arbitrability in opposing class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23” and could not do so without first developing the defense in discovery. Id.
The Seventh Circuit, therefore, affirmed the district court’s denial of Exploria’s motion to compel arbitration.
Implications For Companies
The Moore decision is quite significant for companies and their arbitration programs.
It is very common for companies to have an arbitration agreement with some members of a putative class and not others. When sued in a class action, there is often a temptation to hold such agreements back until after class certification in order to forgo the burden of collecting them until absolutely necessary. But the Moore decision instructs that this path forward is rife with peril and may result in a company losing the right to compel arbitration even when 70% of the class agreed to the provision.
From a legal perspective, the Seventh Circuit’s clarification of the standard of review, and the overruling of cases that call for a per se rule of de novo review, will also make it harder for defendants to overturn unfavorable waiver findings on appeal. When a waiver decision is ultimately reviewed for clear error, the burden to overturn an unfavorable decision will be exceedingly high at the appellate court level. Thus, the stakes at the district court level just got even higher for companies with federal cases pending in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, because the district court decision is likely to be the one that sticks in the long run.
As a result, corporate counsel should work with their outside counsel to audit their organizations’ arbitration agreements to ensure they are identified and ready to be used at the earliest stages of any pending class action.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Betty Luu, and Jamar Davis
Duane Morris Takeaway: On July 21, 2026, in Sara Reyes, et al v. Grow Smart Labor, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:24-CV-00028, Magistrate Judge Stanley Boone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued findings and recommendations denying an employee’s motion for class certification under the California Labor Code. This decision is a reminder that courts scrutinizing motions for class certification will conduct a rigorous, fact-intensive analysis of each Rule 23 requirement rather than accept generalized allegations of common policies or practices. Even where numerosity is easily met, courts will closely examine whether the proposed class is sufficiently uniform across workers, supervisors, pay methods, and timekeeping systems before finding that commonality, typicality, and predominance are satisfied.
Background:
On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff Sara Reyes (“Plaintiff”) filed a class action asserting claims for violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the California Labor Code on behalf of herself and those similarly situated in the State of California. Id. at 6.
Defendant Grow Smart Labor, Inc. (“Grow Smart”) employed Plaintiff as a grape picker and packer in August 2023 for a two-week period. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff alleges she was paid less than the piece-rate basis, was not separately compensated for rest periods or other nonproductive time, and that Grow Smart supervisors instructed her and other employees not to take meal periods or rest breaks, instead directing them to continue working. Id. at 4-6.
On May 14, 2026, Plaintiff moved to certify a class of all non-exempt agricultural employees employed by any Grow Smart from January 5, 2021 to the present.
The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations:
The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and addressed each Rule 23(a) prerequisite in turn. As to numerosity, the Magistrate Judge agreed with Plaintiff that her proposed subclasses (ranging from 160 to 1,067 members) comfortably exceeded the roughly 40-member threshold generally required in the Ninth Circuit. Id. at 22-23. On commonality, however, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff failed to meet her burden as to both her meal-break and piece-rate claims. Id. at 23. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that Grow Smart’s workforce was too heterogeneous to generate common answers, since employees worked for different third-party contractees, at different locations, under different supervisors, different pay methods, and different timekeeping systems. Id. at 31-32. The Court also rejected Plaintiff’s reliance on the rebuttable presumption of meal-period violations recognized in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, 11 Cal. 5th 58 (2021), explaining that Wage Order No. 14, unlike the wage order at issue in Donohue, exempts agricultural employers from recording meal periods when operations cease, so the absence of recorded breaks did not, on its own, establish noncompliance on a class-wide basis. Id. at 23-32.
On typicality, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff’s claims were not typical of the class she sought to represent. Id. at 33. Plaintiff worked only eight shifts, all for a single contractee, all on a piece-rate basis, and had no experience with the different contractees, supervisors, pay methods, or timekeeping systems used elsewhere in Grow Smart’s operations. Id. at 33-35. The Magistrate Judge also found Plaintiff could not represent employees who, beginning in March 2024, became subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement that Plaintiff herself never signed. Id. at 33-38. Because Plaintiff was not typical, the Magistrate Judge likewise found her inadequate to represent the class generally and, specifically, inadequate as to the arbitration-agreement subgroup. Id. at 38.
Turning to Rule 23(b), the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff met neither subsection she invoked. Id. at 39. Under Rule 23(b)(2), the Magistrate Judge held that class treatment was inappropriate because Plaintiff sought individualized monetary damages (not solely injunctive or declaratory relief), which Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 360-361 (2011),forecloses under that subsection, and because the arbitration agreements and varying work conditions meant no single injunction could resolve the claims class-wide. Id. at 39-40. Under Rule 23(b)(3), the Magistrate Judge found predominance lacking for the same reasons commonality failed, and further found Plaintiff had not shown superiority, since resolving the claims would require individualized inquiries into each employee’s assignment, contractee, timekeeping format, and pay method. Id. at 41-43. Having found Plaintiff met only numerosity while failing commonality, typicality, and both invoked Rule 23(b) categories, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion for class certification be denied in full. Id. at 43.
It should be noted that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations remain subject to adoption by the District Judge. Under the Eastern District of California’s Local Rule 304 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), the parties have fourteen days from service to file objections, and the District Judge will then conduct the applicable review before deciding whether to adopt, modify, or reject the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
Implications for Companies
This decision offers useful guidance for agricultural employers and other companies using third-party staffing arrangements across varied worksites.
The decision demonstrates that a named plaintiff’s own work history can substantially narrow the class she is permitted to represent, giving employers grounds to contest an overbroad proposed class even when certain claims otherwise survive. Further, adopting an arbitration agreement even after litigation begins can carve out a meaningful subset of the workforce from any later-certified class, since a plaintiff who never signed such an agreement cannot represent employees who did.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Ryan T. Garippo
Duane Morris Takeaways: On July 21, 2026, in Smith v. GetMeHealthCare, LLC, No. 25-CV-00568, 2026 WL 2089044 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2026), Judge Sheri Polster Chappell, writing for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) plaintiff’s motion to dismiss a common law fraud claim brought by the defendant. Although TCPA claims can prove difficult to win on a motion to dismiss, this decision provides TCPA defendants with another powerful tool at the pleadings stage and helps create opportunities for companies to educate courts on a plaintiff’s fraudulent activity early in the proceedings.
Case Background
In 2025, Plaintiff Keneisha Smith (“Plaintiff” or “Smith”) filed a TCPA lawsuit against GetMeHealthCare, LLC (“GMHC”), alleging she received 31 unwanted telemarketing calls over a 10-day period. She claims these calls were made without her consent and even though she registered her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry.
Nonetheless, on June 12, 2025, Smith answered one of these alleged telemarketing calls. She provided her name, phone number, address, date of birth, and current insurance information. The agent then transferred Smith to a GMHC employee, who helped Smith complete the enrollment process, and signed her up for an insurance plan. Even though Smith willingly signed up for insurance, she sued GMHC claiming it violated Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, and its implementing regulations, for calling her telephone number despite its registration on the national do-not-call registry.
But GMHC decided to put these facts in front of the Court right away. Instead of simply moving to dismiss the claims, GMHC answered the complaint and filed counterclaims for fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement. It argued that “Smith’s willingness to participate in the June 12, 2025, call is inconsistent with her wish not to be contacted.” Id. at *1. Smith also allegedly lied about her age, her actual willingness to obtain health insurance, and her desire to be contacted in the future. In support of its counterclaims, “GMHC sent a recording of the June 12, 2025 call and attached transcript of the call” to its pleadings. Id. at *1, n.1.
In response, Smith moved to dismiss the counterclaims.
The Court’s Decision
In a well-reasoned order, Judge Chappell denied Smith’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, finding “all of Smith’s arguments to be meritless.” Id. Although Smith asserted various arguments regarding the Court’s jurisdiction and GMHC’s requested relief, the majority of the opinion focused on the actual allegations of GMHC’s counterclaim, which were sufficiently pled to survive a motion to dismiss.
In federal court, fraud claims must be pled with a heightened degree of particularity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Under this standard, “claims of fraud must proffer ‘the who, what, when, where, and how of the fraud alleged.’” Smith, 2026 WL 2089044, at *2 (quoting Omnipol, a.S. v. Worrell, 421 F. Supp. 3d 1321, 1343 (M.D. Fla. 2019), aff’d sub nom., 32 F.4th 1298 (11th Cir. 2022))
Here, Judge Chappell found that GMHC pled all of these details and the misrepresentations could be actionable. Judge Chappell found that Smith’s alleged conduct before the call where she “consent[ed] to be contacted,” when coupled with her misrepresentations about her “age” and desire to complete “enrollment,” could plausibly constitute fraud. Smith, 2026 WL 2089044, at *3. Judge Chappell also accepted GMHC’s plausible allegations that Smith’s “motivation [was] to commit fraud” and the communication was orchestrated to form the basis of “a lawsuit against GMHC to get money.” Id. Judge Chappell also independently concluded that the recording and transcript of the call supported “most, if not all, of GMHC’s allegations.” Id.
Thus, Judge Chappel rejected “Smith’s Rule 9(b) argument” and declined to dismiss the claim. Id.
Implications For Companies
The litigation strategy in Smith is significant for companies facing TCPA lawsuits.
As many companies know, it is common for a consenting customer to invite telemarketing calls, and then “deceptively play[] along” upon receipt of those calls, only to turn around and sue the caller in a TCPA class action. Abramson v. Oasis Power LLC, No. 18-CV-00479, 2018 WL 4101857, at *5 (W.D. Pa. July 31, 2018). When companies try to explain these tactics to courts at the pleadings stage, the concerns are often brushed away as “unpersuasive.” Id. The reason that strategy is ineffective is because “[p]rior express consent is an affirmative defense to a claim under the TCPA” and typically must be resolved after discovery. Murphy v. DCI Biologicals Orlando, LLC, No. 12-CV-1459, 2013 WL 6865772., at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2013) (quotations omitted).
With the benefit of discovery, companies can often demonstrate the “Plaintiff invited the initial call . . . [and] further calls by playing along on the first call” as a basis why a class should not be certified because it is a unique defense that “will distract from the claim to the Class’s detriment.” Sapan v. Fed. Sav. Bank, No. 23-CV-00075, 2025 WL 3050064, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2025) (denying class certification based on typicality); see also Sapan v. Veritas Funding, LLC, No. 23-CV-00468, 2023 WL 6370223, at (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2023) (same). But it requires a significant investment to litigate a claim through class certification, and many companies are looking for an exit opportunity prior to that stage in the proceedings.
Smith provides companies with a tool to get these facts in front of courts at the earliest stages of the litigation and shape the judge’s impression of the case. It also provides companies with additional recourse as common law fraud opens up the door to tort damages that are traditionally off the table in TCPA cases. For example, in Illinois, there is an argument that “actions at common law fraud provide for the award of attorney fees and costs, as well as punitive damages.” Father & Sons, Inc. v. Taylor, 703 N.E.2d 532, 547 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
Further, even if the counterclaim cannot result in the entire action being dismissed at the outset of a case, it can create leverage for the company to negotiate a favorable exit from the litigation early on. And, if the case proceeds to discovery regardless, the counterclaim can prove useful given that “a defense or counterclaim defeats typicality if it is likely to become the litigation’s focus.” Hirsch v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, 337 F.R.D. 118, 133 (N.D. Tex. 2020).
Thus, corporate counsel facing TCPA actions should be carefully considering the facts in their cases to determine whether they support the use of a similar counterclaim or other creative procedural defenses.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Ryan T. Garippo
Duane Morris Takeaways: On July 14, 2026, in Steidinger, et al. v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398, 2026 WL 2028517 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), Judge Thomas Kirsch, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action complaint and held that 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) does not create a private right of action for the receipt of unwanted text messages.
The decision is significant because it represents the first federal appellate decision squarely holding that text messages are not “telephone calls” within the meaning of Section 227(c)(5) and significantly reduces potential TCPA-related liability for companies operating in the Seventh Circuit.
Case Background
The plaintiffs in this case are a group of individuals (“Plaintiffs”) who received text messages and calls from Blackstone Medical Services (“Blackstone”) promoting the company’s home sleep tests. Plaintiffs alleged that they received these communications even though they were either registered on the national do-not-call registry or after they communicated to Blackstone that they did not want to be contacted. As a result, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against Blackstone, alleging violations of the TCPA and Florida’s mini-TCPA law, seeking statutory damages, an injunction, and declaratory relief. Specifically, Plaintiffs sued under Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA which provides plaintiffs with a private right of action for certain “violation[s] of the regulations prescribed under this subsection.” 47 U.S.C. §227(c)(5)(a).
Blackstone moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ TCPA claims. It argued that because the private right of action in Section 227(c)(5) is limited to any “person who has received more than one telephone call,” the provision only applies to “telephone calls” and not text messages. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois agreed with Blackstone. Jones v. Blackstone Med. Servs., LLC, 792 F. Supp. 3d 894, 902 (C.D. Ill. 2025).The district court concluded “based on a plain reading of the TCPA and its implementing regulations, Section 227(c)(5) does not apply to text messages.” Id. The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claim and dismissed the lawsuit. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Seventh Circuit’s Ruling
In a 13-page opinion, Judge Thomas Kirsch, writing for the Seventh Circuit, succinctly concluded “that § 227(c)(5) does not permit plaintiffs to sue for the receipt of unwanted texts.” Steidinger, 2026 WL 2028517, at *1.
The Seventh Circuit explained that Section 227(c)(5) creates a private right of action for any individual “who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period” in violation of the regulations implementing that subjection. Id. at *2(quoting 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)). Thus, the dispute hinged on the meaning of the term “telephone call” when the statute was passed in 1991. Id.
As Judge Kirsch explained, in 1991, a “telephone” was defined as “[a]n instrument for reproducing sounds at a distance” and a “call” was defined as “to get or try to get into communication by telephone.” Id. Therefore, a “telephone call” would have “referred to communication via sound.” Id. But “[t]ext messages do not reproduce sounds” and would not have been thought of as calls (especially given that the first text message was not sent till 1992). Id.
After observing other structural elements of the TCPA which would suggest narrower reading of the term “telephone call,” the Seventh Circuit also rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) interpretation of “call,” which included text messages, was entitled to deference. In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, 606 U.S. 146, 168 (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court had already determined that courts are “not bound by the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA.” Thus, the Seventh Circuit determined that it would not afford deference to the FCC’s interpretation.
Finally, the Seventh Circuit opined on the public policy concerns remedied by the TCPA. The Seventh Circuit explained that, when Congress passed the TCPA, it “specifically found that telemarketing calls create a public safety risk when they seize telephone lines needed for emergency or medical assistance.” Steidinger, 2026 WL 2028517, at *5. But “[s]pam text messages don’t pose this risk, making it unsurprising, or at the very least reasonable, that § 227(c)(5)’s private right of action would cover telephone calls but not messages.” Id.
In short, “[r]epeated, unwanted text messages are undoubtedly a nuisance. But they do not fall within the private right of action created by § 227(c)(5).” Id.
Implications For Companies
The Steidinger decision is likely the single most important decision in the post-McKesson era.
For TCPA cases filed in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, a company cannot be sued based on text messages that were allegedly made in violation of the TCPA’s implementing regulations. As a result, the typical claims that are often brought under Section 227(c)(5) will no longer be available to plaintiffs where the communications in question were text messages. These claims include situations where a company allegedly violated the national do-not-call registry’s requirements, their own internal do-not-call registry’s requirements, where texts were made without caller identification information, where texts were made during “quiet hours,” and other claims typically brought under Section 227(c)(5). Steidinger should take each of these claims off the table within these jurisdictions.
Steininger, however, is not the end of this fight. In Howard v. Republican National Committee, 164 F.4th 1119, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2026), the Ninth Circuit determined (albeit while considering a Section 227(b)(3) claim) that text messages were covered by the broad definition of the phrase “any call” as applicable in that case. Although there may theoretically be some daylight between the phrase “any call” as interpreted in Howard, and the phrase “telephone call” as interpreted in Steidinger, this decision certainly signals a growing methodological division between these two circuits.
While Steininger is undoubtably beneficial for companies, corporate counsel should be mindful that this case does not mean their texts are unregulated for at least three reasons. First, even in the Seventh Circuit, private plaintiffs can still theoretically bring claims under Section 227(b)(3) if the texts are made using an “automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). Second, there are also other federal, state, and local jurisdictions which prohibit the conduct previously protected by the TCPA in the Seventh Circuit. And third, Steininger only removes the risk of a federal class action lawsuit under Section 227(c)(5), it does not eliminate the risk of an FCC enforcement action related to a company’s text messaging programs.
We will be monitoring any developments in this space and corporate counsel should continue to check in regularly as the TCPA landscape continues to shift.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Elizabeth G. Underwood
Duane Morris Takeaways: On July 6, 2026, in Shellenberger v. AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc., et al., No. 25-1448 (9th Cir. July 6, 2026), Judges Christen, Hurwitz, and Bade of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of a putative class action alleging that AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. and Whirlpool Corporation violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) in connection with a KitchenAid service plan. The Ninth Circuit held that the named Plaintiff plausibly alleged that the Defendants’ offer letter and service contract, taken together, had the capacity to deceive a reasonable consumer, and that the district court erred in resolving that fact-intensive question at the motion to dismiss stage.
This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for companies that market service plans, particularly where buyout provisions or qualifiers in the fine print may be read as cutting against the offerings set out in consumer offer letters.
Case Background
Plaintiff Hadassah Shellenberger (“Plaintiff”) filed a putative class action against AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. and Whirlpool Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting a claim under the CPA, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.86.020, 19.86.093. Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants’ offer letter created the impression “that the KitchenAid Service Plan would provide repairs or replacements for covered malfunctions, with repairs performed by KitchenAid-certified technicians, at no out-of-pocket expense to her.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff further alleged that this impression was inconsistent with the terms of the service contract, which included a buyout option, exercisable at Defendants’ sole discretion, allowing Defendants to technically satisfy all obligations under the contract without ever providing a repair or replacement. Id.
The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s CPA claim, finding that she had failed to plausibly allege the first element of a CPA claim, namely, “whether the defendant has engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit. Id. at 1.
The Ninth Circuit’s Decision
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s CPA claim. Id. at 7. The Ninth Circuit determined that Plaintiff’s interpretation of the offer letter was “facially plausible” because the offer letter mentioned only repairs and replacements as modes of performance, while the buyout option in the service contract provided an alternative manner of performance that was “inconsistent with the advertised benefits.” Id. at 3.
The Ninth Circuit rejected Defendants’ arguments that caveats in the offer letter and a fine-print disclaimer made Plaintiff’s interpretation implausible, finding the disclaimer language “insufficiently clear to change the apparent meaning of the offer letter’s representations.” Id. at 4 (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, the Ninth Circuit similarly rejected the argument that qualifiers, such as “covered” and “where applicable”, defeated Plaintiff’s reading, concluding that those terms plausibly limited only the specific representations immediately next to them. Id. at 5.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit highlighted that whether a representation is misleading to a reasonable consumer is “a fact-intensive question not typically susceptible to resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.” Id. at 7.
Implications For Companies
This decision underscores that companies cannot avoid liability at the motion to dismiss stage under the CPA and other similar consumer protection statutes by simply pointing to fine-print disclaimers or qualifying words like “covered” or “where applicable.” Instead, courts will look to whether that fine print is clear enough to actually change the overall impression created by a company’s offer letter.
Overall, companies should audit consumer-facing offer letters and relevant marketing materials against discretionary provisions in service contracts to ensure consistency and compliance, especially where materials promise specific modes of performance, such as repair or replacement by certified technicians as seen in this case, that could be undercut by a seller’s discretion to satisfy its obligations through a different mechanism.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Daniel D. Spencer, and Kenny T. Tran
Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 30, 2026, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2155 (AB 2155), which amends California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281 to provide that any arbitration agreement deemed unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is likewise unenforceable under the California Arbitration Act (CAA). The amendment is designed to align California law with federal law by ensuring that the same limitations, exceptions, and exemptions governing the enforceability of arbitration agreements under the FAA also apply under the CAA.
Overview
AB 2155 expressly incorporates two significant FAA exemptions into the CAA, including: (1) the “transportation worker” exemption, which applies to contracts of employment for seamen, railroad employees, and other classes of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce; and (2) the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), which renders predispute arbitration agreements unenforceable with respect to claims involving sexual assault or sexual harassment disputes.
AB 2155 becomes effective on January 1, 2027, and the legislation contains no indication that it applies retroactively. Prior to this amendment, employers frequently argued that even if the FAA did not govern an arbitration agreement, the agreement remained enforceable under the CAA because California law did not recognize the FAA’s transportation worker exemption. AB 2155 eliminates that argument. Beginning January 1, 2027, if an arbitration agreement is unenforceable under the FAA due to the transportation worker exemption, it will likewise be unenforceable under the CAA.
Implications for Employers
Employers, particularly those whose operations involve interstate commerce, should review their arbitration agreements and dispute resolution strategies in anticipation of AB 2155’s effective date. The amendment is likely to increase litigation challenging the enforceability of arbitration agreements, including class and representative actions brought by transportation workers and claims falling within the scope of the EFAA.
Duane Morris Takeaway: In the first half of 2026, across all major types of class actions, courts issued rulings on more than 155 motions to grant or deny class certification, and plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 97 rulings, with an overall success rate of 63%. In contrast, comparing apples to apples, in the first half of 2025, courts issued rulings on more than 211 motions to grant or deny class certification, and plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 145 rulings, with an overall success rate of 69%.
Percentages for year over year rulings for 2022 to 2025 are below. Across all major areas of class action litigation in 2025, courts issued rulings on 435 motions for class certification. Courts granted 297 motions for class certification in whole or in part, a rate of approximately 68%. In 2024, courts issued rulings on 432 motions to grant or to deny class certification. Of these, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 272 rulings, for an overall success rate of 63%. In 2023, by comparison, courts issued rulings on 451 motions to grant or to deny class certification, and plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 324 rulings, an overall success rate of nearly 72%. In 2022, courts issued rulings on 335 motions to grant or to deny class certification, and plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 247 rulings, an overall success rate of nearly 74%.
In 2026, the number of motions that courts considered varied significantly by subject matter area, and the number of rulings varied across substantive area:
The following list summarizes the results in each of ten key areas of class action litigation.
FCRA – 100% granted / 0% denied (2 of 2 granted / 0 of 2 denied) TCPA – 100% granted / 0% denied (2 of 2 granted / 0 of 2 denied) RICO – 100% granted / 0% denied (1 of 1 granted / 0 of 1 denied) WARN Act – 100% granted / 0% denied (1 of 1 granted / 0 of 1 denied)A Security Fraud – 80% granted / 20% denied (8 of 10 granted / 2 of 10 denied) Antitrust – 71% granted / 29% denied (5 of 7 granted / 2 of 7 denied) Consumer Fraud – 71% granted / 29% denied (10 of 14 granted / 4 of 14 denied) Civil Rights – 65% granted / 35% denied (13 of 20 granted / 7 of 20 denied) ERISA – 64% granted / 36% denied (9 of 14 granted / 5 of 14 denied) FLSA / Wage & Hour (Conditional Certification) – 58% granted / 42% denied (39 of 67 granted / 28 of 67 denied) Discrimination – 50% granted / 50% denied (2 of 4 granted / 2 of 4 denied) FLSA / Wage & Hour (Decertification) – 50% granted / 50% denied (1 of 2 granted / 1 of 2 denied) Privacy – 44% granted / 56% denied (4 of 9 granted / 5 of 9 denied) Products Liability / Mass Torts – 0% granted / 100% denied (0 of 1 granted / 1 of 1 denied) Data Breach – 0% granted / 0% denied (no class certification rulings in 2026)
The plaintiffs’ class action bar obtained 100% success rates in four areas, FCRA, TCPA, RICO, and WARN. There have only been two FCRA and TCPA certification rulings in 2026, and one each for RICO and WARN, which were all granted by the court for a 100% success rate. In cases alleging securities fraud violations, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining orders certifying classes in 8 of 10 rulings, for a success rate of 80%. In cases alleging antitrust violations, plaintiffs managed to obtain class certification rulings in 5 of 7 rulings issued during the first half of 2026, a success rate of 71%. And in wage & hour litigation, plaintiffs were not nearly as successful as in previous years. They succeeded in obtaining orders certifying classes and/or collective actions in 39 of 67 rulings issued during 2026, a success rate of only 58%.
Courts Issued More Rulings In FLSA Collective Actions and Wage & Hour Class Actions Than In Any Other Areas Of Law
For the first half of calendar year 2026, courts issued more certification rulings in FLSA collective actions and wage & hour class actions than in other types of cases. Plaintiffs historically have been able to obtain conditional certification of FLSA collective actions at a high rate, which surely has contributed to the number of filings in this area. Of the 67 rulings addressing first-stage motions for conditional certification, the court granted 39, for a success rate of a much lower than typical 58%
In contrast, from January 1 to July 1, 2025, issued 74 rulings. Of these, 71 addressed first-stage motions for conditional certification of collective actions under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and 3 addressed second-stage motions for decertification of collective actions. Of the 71 rulings that courts issued on motions for conditional certification, 58 rulings favored plaintiffs, for a success rate of 82%.
At the decertification stage, courts generally have conducted a closer examination of the evidence and, as a result, defendants historically have enjoyed an equal if not higher rate of success on these second-stage motions as compared to plaintiffs. The results so far in 2026 have not supported that typical success. There have only been 2 rulings thus far that courts issued on motions for decertification of collective actions, and only 1 ruling favored defendants, for a success rate of 50%.
An analysis of the rulings demonstrates that a disproportionate number emanated from traditionally pro-plaintiff jurisdictions, including the judicial districts within the Second Circuit (16 decisions) and Ninth Circuit (14 decisions), which include New York and California, respectively.
Takeaways From Certification Statistics Midway Through 2026
Notable thus far at the halfway point of the year, there have been a very small number of rulings emanating from the Fifth and Sixth Circuits (2 and 1 decisions, respectfully), which was true in 2025 as well. There have overall been less rulings issued by the courts, and at a lower success rate than previous years.
We will continue to track class certification trends in 2026 and will report on final numbers in the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2027, which will be published in the first week of January. Stay tuned!
Duane Morris Takeaways: Corporate defendants saw unprecedented settlement numbers across all areas of class action litigation between 2022 and 2025, and mid-year through 2026, settlement numbers are even more robust. The cumulative value of the top ten settlements across all substantive areas of class action litigation hit record highs in 2025, surpassing the highest levels ever in 2022. When the numbers for the previous few years are combined, the total signals that corporate defendants have entered a new era of heightened risks and higher stakes in the valuation of class actions.
On an aggregate basis, across all areas of litigation, class actions and government enforcement lawsuits garnered more than $79 billion in 2025, $42 billion in 2024, $51.4 billion in settlements in 2023, and a $66 billion in 2022. When combined, the four-year settlement total eclipses any other four-year period in the history of American jurisprudence.
As a prelude to the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2027, this blog post reports on our analysis of class action settlements through the first half of 2026. The data shows that for the period of January 1 to June 30, 2026, the current year is ahead of the historically high numbers of 2025. As of the end of the first half of 2026, the aggregate settlement total across all areas of class action litigation and government enforcement lawsuits is $53.795 billion (in accounting for the top 5 settlements in the various substantive areas of law). By comparison, in 2025 at the half-way mark, the aggregate settlement total was $21.77 billion.
It is anticipated that these numbers will increase across the board by the end of the year and when measured by the top 10 settlements in each category.
More Billion Dollar Class Action Settlements
At the mid-way point of 2026, there are three settlements over the billion-dollar mark. There were eight total billion-dollar settlements in 2025. The 10 individual billion-dollar settlements in 2024 surpassed the number in 2023, and only fell short of the number of billion-dollar settlements in 2022. In 2023, parties resolved nine class actions for $1 billion or more. In 2022, parties resolved 15 class actions for $1 billion or more in settlement dollars. Together with the three thus far in 2026, corporations have seen 45 settlements of one billion dollars or more in four and a half years. This string of settlements marks the most extensive set of billion-dollar class action settlements in the history of the American court system.
The Scorecard On Leading Class Actions Settlements Halfway Through 2026
The plaintiffs’ class action bar has scored rich settlements thus far in 2026 in virtually every area of class action litigation. The following list shows the totals of the top 5 settlements at the mid-year point in 2026 in key areas of class action litigation:
$34.875 Billion – Antitrust class actions $8.609 Billion – Products liability/Mass Tort class actions $4.25 Billion – Government Enforcement actions $1.979 Billion – Securities Fraud class actions $1.535 Billion – Consumer Fraud class actions $624 Million – Privacy class actions $501 Million – ERISA class actions $392.1 Million – Discrimination class actions $323.9 Million – Wage & Hour class and collective actions $309.7 Million – Data Breach class actions $242.45 Million – Labor class actions $105.05 Million – Fair Credit Reporting Act class actions $60.93 Million – TCPA class actions $41.9 Million – Civil Rights class actions
The high dollar settlements of the past four years suggested that the plaintiffs’ bar would continue to be equally, if not more aggressive, with their case filings and settlement positions. From the 2026 data, it certainly looks to be the case as we end the first half of the year. The data points in each category are set out in the following charts.
Top Class & Collective Action Litigation Settlements In 2026
Top Antitrust Class Action Settlements In 2026
The top 10 antitrust class action settlements totaled $45.99 billion in 2025, $8.412 billion in 2024, $11.74 billion in 2023, and $3.72 billion in 2022.
$34 billion – In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee And Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-MD-1720 (E.D.N.Y. June 9, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted to Visa’s and Mastercard’s revised settlement with merchants who accused the card networks of charging too much to process payments on their credit cards).
$303 million – Ray, et al. v. NCAA, Case No. 23-CV-425 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from thousands of Division I volunteer coaches alleging that the organization’s rules fixed their compensation at zero).
$218 million – In Re Realpage Inc. Rental Software Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 23-MD-3071 (M.D. Tenn. May 22, 2026) (May 22, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted to resolve claims from a second set of renters alleging antitrust claims that they colluded with revenue management firm RealPage Inc. to fix rental prices across the country).
$200 million – In Re Generic Pharmaceutical Pricing Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 16-MD-2724 (E.D. Penn. Jan 23, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging antitrust claims alleging the defendants conspired with other drugmakers to inflate generic drug prices).
$136 million – In Re PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 24-CV-7639 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company conspired with other polyvinyl chloride pipe producers to fix prices).
Top Civil Rights Class Action Settlements In 2026
The top 10 civil rights class action settlements totaled $580.9 million in 2025, $313.8 million in 2024, $643.15 million in 2023, and $1.31 billion in 2022.
$20 million – Healy, et al. v. Jefferson County Kentucky Louisville Metro Government, Case No. 17-CV-71 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 11, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the County regularly imprisons, detains or incarcerates persons longer than ordered by Courts of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and under conditions that violate the orders of such Courts).
$15 million – Johnson, et al. v. City Of Annapolis, Case No. 21-CV-112 (D. Md. May 26, 2026) (settlement reached in two class actions to resolve claims from more than 1,400 city residents of public housing and by representatives of a former public housing resident who died alleging substandard housing conditions at properties owned and operated by the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis (HACA).
$4 million – Cody, et al. v. City Of St. Louis, Case No. 17-CV-2707 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 13, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from hundreds of people who say they endured inhumane conditions while held at the city’s Medium Security Institution, commonly known as the Workhouse).
$1.5 million – Coleman, et al. v. City Of Brookside, Case No. 22-CV-423 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 6, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims brought by four drivers who said they were targeted in an aggressive towing and ticketing scheme).
$1.4 million – Santiago, et al. v. City Of Chicago, Case No. 22-CV-5827 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in two consolidated actions to resolve claims alleging the city of Chicago tows vehicles it deems abandoned without properly notifying their owners).
Top Consumer Fraud Class Action Settlements In 2026
The top 10 consumer fraud class action settlements totaled $2.1 billion in 2025, $2.44 billion in 2024, $3.29 billion in 2023, and $8.596 billion in 2022.
$436 million – Broadmoor Lumber & Plywood Co. et al. v. Toyota Industries Corp., Case No. 24-CV-6640 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant and its subsidiaries misled tens of thousands of business buyers into thinking the emissions of its forklift and construction engines were “the cleanest” in the industry).
$425 million – In Re Capital One 360 Savings Account Interest Rate Litigation, Case No. 24-MD-311 (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that Capital One deceptively advertised its 360 Savings accounts).
$309 million – In Re Amazon Return Policy Litigation, Case No. 23-CV-1372 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 27, 2026) (settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve a proposed class action accusing Amazon of shortchanging customers on refunds for returned items).
$240 million – Bickerstaff, et al. v. SunTrust Bank, Case No. 10EV010485 (Ga. Cir. Ct. May 26, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action alleging that the bank charged illegal overdrafts on ATM and debit card transactions which harmed Georgia consumers).
$125 million – National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al. v. United States, Case No. 24-1757 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 20, 2026) (settlement approval affirmed in a class action to resolve claims of hundreds of thousands of PACER users who were allegedly made to pay more than the law allowed).
Top Data Breach Class Action Settlements In 2026
The top 10 data breach class action settlements totaled $515.79 million in 2025, $593.2 million in 2024, $515.75 million in 2023, and $719.21 million in 2022.
$117.5 million – Hasson, et al. v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, Case No. 23-CV-5039 (E.D. Penn. May 13, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging the internet and mobile services provider failed to implement proper cybersecurity measures to safeguard sensitive consumer information, leading to an October 2023 data breach).
$46.7 million – In Re 23andMe, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 24-MD-3098 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that 23andMe Inc. and affiliates had a data breach in which millions of customers’ genetic data and personally identifiable information (PII) was hacked).
$31.5 million – Angus, et al. v. Flagstar Bank FSB, Case No. 21-CV-10657 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve consolidated class claims that Flagstar Bank failed to protect the personal information of customers and employees in two data breaches impacting more than 2 million people).
$26 million – In Re Lakeview Loan Servicing Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 22-CV-20955 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted to settle a class action over their personally identifiable information potentially being accessed during a data breach).
$24.5 million – In Re LastPass Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 22-CV-12047 (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted to settle a proposed class action over a 2022 data breach that exposed the personal information of millions of people and led to the looting of cryptocurrency accounts).
Top Discrimination Class Action Settlements In 2026
The top 10 discrimination class action settlements totaled $507.10 million in 2025, $356.8 million in 2024, $762.2 million in 2023, and $597 million in 2022.
$110 million – In Re Wells Fargo & Co. Hiring Practices Derivative Litigation, Case No. 22-CV-5173 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve a shareholder derivative lawsuit accusing the bank of corporate mismanagement through discriminatory hiring and lending).
$100 million – Snyder-Hill, et al. v. The Ohio State University, Case No. 23-cv-2993, Knight, et al. v. The Ohio State University, Case No. 23-CV-2994, and Gonzales, et al. v. The Ohio State University, Case No. 23-CV-3051 (S.D. Ohio June 22, 2026) (board approval of a settlement agreement to resolve claims from approximately 300 former students accusing former Ohio State University sports doctor Richard Strauss of sexual abuse).
$72.5 million – Doe, et al. v. Bank Of America NA, Case No. 25-CV-8520 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking and abuse).
$60.5 million – Candelore, et al. v. Tinder, Inc., Case No. BC583162 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 4, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company charged older users more than younger users for Tinder Plus and Tinder Gold subscriptions.
$35 million – Bensky, et al. v. Darren Indyke, Case No. 24-CV-1204 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action alleging that the defendants helped facilitate Jeffrey Epstein’s vast sex trafficking enterprise).
Top EEOC / Government Enforcement Class Action Settlements In 2026
The top 10 EEOC / government enforcement class action settlements totaled $3.29 billion in 2025, $335.9 million in 2024, $263.58 million in 2023, and $404.5 million in 2022.
$3 billion – New Jersey Department Of Environmental Protection, et al. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Case No. 19-CV-14758 & 19-CV-14766 (D.N.J. June 24, 2026) (settlement approval pending to resolve the state’s claims over contamination caused by the manufacture and discharge of forever chemicals).
$575 million – United States Of America, et al. v. PacifiCorp., Case No. 24-CV-2102 (D. Ore. Feb. 20, 2026) (settlement reached to resolve claims for damages related to wildfires in Oregon and Northern California).
$450 million – United States Of America, et al. v. Chemours Co., Case No. 26-CV-418 (S.D. W. Va. June 24, 2026) (proposed consent decree entered for a multi-state settlement with Chemours Co. over alleged years-long, illegal discharges of synthetic “forever chemicals” used to make products resistant to water, grease and stains).
$125 million –Illinois And Peoples Gas and Northshore Gas (Ill. Cmrc. Comm. Apr. 30, 2026) (settlement reached with two gas companies and the Attorney General’s office on behalf of customers concerning costs related to Peoples Gas’ ongoing, massive program to retire cast- and ductile-iron mains).
$100 million – Federal Trade Commission, et al. v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 26-CV-1655 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2026) (consent decree entered to settle claims the company misled its “Spark” delivery program drivers over the amount they would be paid, and deceived customers over how much of the tips they paid would go to their drivers).
Top ERISA Class Action Settlements In 2026
The top 10 ERISA class action settlements totaled $680.30 million in 2025, $413.3 million in 2024, $580.5 million in 2023, and $399.6 million in 2022.
$332 million – McCutcheon, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Case No. 16-CV-4170 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 14, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that Colgate-Palmolive violated ERISA by miscalculating pension benefits for retirees who took lump-sum distributions between 1989 and 2005).
$48 million – Hoak, et al. v. Ledford, Case No. 15-CV-3983 (N.D. Ga. May 13, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant failed to provide annuity payments for life).
$44.4 million – In Re AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation, Case No. 22-MD-3035 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 24, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a multidistrict litigation from a class of African Methodist Episcopal Church workers who alleged that mismanagement of their annuity retirement plan allowed a rogue employee to embezzle $90 million).
$42 million – Halter, et al. v. Providence Health & Services, Case No. 25-CV-210 (W.D. Wash. June 4, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that Providence mismanaged its employees’ retirement plan by failing to use money forfeited by departing workers to reduce administrative expenses).
$35 million – Iron Workers District Council Of New England Health And Welfare Fund, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Case No. 23-CV-11131 (D. Mass. Apr. 3, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from a coalition of union healthcare funds alleging that the defendant schemed to delay generic competition for its QVAR asthma inhalers).
Top FCRA, FDPCA, And FACTA Class Action Settlements In 2026
The top 10 FCRA, FDPCA, and FACTA class action settlements totaled $74.77 million in 2025, $42.43 million in 2024, $100.15 million in 2023, and $210.11 million in 2022.
$56.85 million – Stoff, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Case No. 37-2020-00020808-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 17, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to report CARES Act forbearances accurately).
$14.3 million – Ray, et al. v. AdaptHealth Corp., Case No. 22-CV-898 (M.D.N.C. June 1, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company violated the North Carolina Debt Collection Act by overcharging and trying to collect debts from patients who had returned medical equipment to the company).
$13.5 million – Scroggins, et al. v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc., Case No. 22-cv-00545 (E.D. Va. Mar. 16, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant incorrectly reported some consumers as deceased).
$13 million – VanderKodde, et al. v. Elliott, Case No. 17-CV-203 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 13, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from debtors who alleged that a creditor law firm charged unlawfully high post-judgment interest rates during debt collection).
$7.4 million – Keim, et al. v. Trader Joe’s, Case No. 19STCV36790 (Cal. Super. Ct. Feb. 5, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the grocery store violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act by providing customers with printed receipts that displayed both the first six and last four digits of their card numbers).
Top FLSA / Wage & Hour Class And Collective Settlements In 2026
The top 10 FLSA / wage & hour class and collective action settlements totaled $430.58 million in 2025, $614.55 million in 2024, $742.5 million in 2023, and $574.55 million in 2022.
$162 million – Calderon, et al. v. Public Partnerships LLC, Case No. 25-CV-2320 (E.D.N.Y. June 23, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company failed to timely and accurately pay about 200,000 personal assistants).
$86 million – Callister, et al. v. Swedish Health Services, Case No. 21-2-16148-7 (Wash. Super. Ct. May 8, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action alleging that the company failed to provide required second meal periods for employees working shifts longer than 10 hours, and underpaid workers through a policy of rounding time entries).
$38.7 million – Pruess, et al. v. Presbyterian Health Plan Inc., Case No. 19-CV-629 (D.N.M. Jan. 9, 2026) (D.N.M. June 24, 2026) (final settlement approval granted to resolve claims alleging that the defendant failed to pay overtime compensation to care workers in violation of the FLSA).
$19.2 million – Diaz, et al. v. New York Paving Inc., Case No. 18-CV-4910 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant failed to pay for pre- and post-shift work and for overtime compensation).
$18 million – Abarca, et al. v. Werner Enterprises Inc., Case No. 14-CV-319, Smith, et al. v. Werner Enterprises Inc., Case No. 15-CV-287, and Vester, et al. v. Werner Enterprises Inc., Case No. 17-CV-145 (D. Neb. Feb. 5, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a collective action to resolve claims alleging that Werner failed to pay minimum wages for non-driving work time, including time spent in sleeper berths, waiting for loads, performing pre-trip and post-trip inspections and attending to cargo security).
Top Labor Class Action Settlements In 2026
The top 10 labor class action settlements totaled $210.5 million in 2025, $237.0 million in 2024 and $129.67 million in 2023.
$200.2 million – Brown, et al. v. JBS, Inc., Case No. 22-CV-2946 (D. Colo. Jan. 15, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims between former employees and Agri Beef, American Foods Group, Cargill, Hormel, JBS, National Beef, Nebraska Beef, Perdue Farms, Quality Pork, Seaboard Foods, Triumph Foods and Tyson Foods alleging that the companies unlawfully conspired to suppress the wages of workers at their processing plants).
$27.5 million – Hoffman, et al. v. United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 21-CV-6395 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 11, 2026) (settlement reached in a class action to settle a lawsuit by former employees who say the defendant mishandled recent voluntary buyout programs).
$9.5 million – Dorrell, et al. v. Constellation Energy Corp., Case No. 25-CV-2251 (D. Md. May 12, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action alleging that the company conspired with other major nuclear power generation companies to illegally limit compensation for employees).
$3 million – Bailey, et al. v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., Case No. 24-CV-2749 (W.D. Tenn. May 1, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant failed to retroactively reimburse the tobacco penalties paid by certain employees who subsequently complete a quit-smoking program, and of failing to inform workers that recommendations from their personal physicians will be considered in the course of assessing penalties).
$2.25 million – Brinkman, et al. v. Target Corporation, Case No. 24-2- 25091-3 (Wash. Super. Ct. May 5, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company failed to disclose wage scales and salary ranges in Washington job postings).
Top Privacy Class Action Settlements In 2026
The top 10 privacy class action settlements totaled $801.85 million in 2025, $2.01 billion in 2024, $1.32 billion in 2023, and $896.7 million in 2022.
$250 million – Landsheft, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 25-CV-2668 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims alleging that Apple misled millions of iPhone buyers by falsely touting artificial intelligence capabilities for its Siri voice assistant in 2024).
$135 million – Taylor, et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 20-CV-7956 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action class action alleging Google illegally consumes the cellular data consumers have purchased from their cellular providers).
$115 million – Katz-Lacabe, et al. v. Oracle America Inc., No. 24-7648 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2026) (final settlement approval affirmed in a privacy lawsuit over the defendant’s online data-collection practices despite the objections of one class member).
$68 million – In Re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation, Case No. 19-CV-4286 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that Google eavesdropped on and recorded confidential communications without user consent).
$56 million – Frasco, et al. v. Flo Health Inc., Case No. 21-CV-757 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve from Flo users who alleged Google illegally intercepted the private menstrual health data of millions of users without their consent).
Top Products Liability And Mass Tort Class Action Settlements In 2026
The top 10 products liability / mass tort class action settlements totaled $17.9 billion in 2025, $23.40 billion in 2024, $25.83 billion in 2023, and $50.32 billion in 2022.
$7.25 billion – King, et al. v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 2622-CC00325 (Mo. Cir. Ct. Mar. 4, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted to resolve current and future claims across the U.S. that weed killer Roundup causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma).
$773 million – In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Case No. 17-MD-2804 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2026) (Albertsons Cos. Inc. and the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon agreed to a settlement in principle to end claims brought by states, local governments, and Native American tribes over its role in the opioid crisis).
$318 million – In Re 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties, Case No. 08-CV-10934 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2026) (settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims stemming from the federal government’s forfeiture action against a 36-story Midtown Manhattan office tower linked to the Iranian government).
$180 million – The Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, Case No. 20-BK-21257 (D.N.J. Bank. Ct. Feb. 17, 2026) (settlement reached pending approval by the bankruptcy court in a class action to resolve a dispute arising from claims of sexual abuse by members of the Diocesan clergy).
$88.5 million – In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Case No.17-MD-2804 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2026) (final settlement agreement granted with Amneal Pharmaceuticals and several states to resolve litigation over its role in creating and fueling the opioid overdose epidemic).
Top Securities Fraud Class Action Settlements In 2026
The top 10 securities fraud class action settlements totaled $3.45 billion in 2025, $2.55 billion in 2024, $5.4 billion in 2023, and $3.25 billion in 2022.
$740 million – In Re Didi Global Securities Litigation, Case No. 21-CV-5807 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims by investors alleging that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions in the Registration Statement and engaged in deceptive conduct in connection with DiDi’s June 30, 2021 Initial Public Offering (IPO).
$500 million – Sjunde AP-Fonden, et al. v. The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Case No. 18-CV-12084 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2026) (settlement reached in a class action brought by investors who asserted that they lost money after it came to light that the company was allegedly involved in a bribery scandal tied to Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund).
$250 million – Crews, Jr., et al. v. Rivian Automotive, Inc., Case No. 22-CV-1524 (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from investors alleging that the company misled investors in connection with its Initial Public Offering).
$250 million – Sjunde AP-Fonden, et al. v. Activision Blizzard Inc., Case No. 2022-1001 (Del. Chanc. Ct. May 22, 2026) (settlement reached with Microsoft Corp. to end shareholder litigation over its $75.4 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc.
$239 million – In Re Celgene Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-CV-4772 (D.N.J. May 8, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the Celgene and two of its former officers violated the federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations and omissions during the regarding certain Celgene products and product candidates).
Top TCPA Class Action Settlements In 2026
The top 10 TCPA class action settlements totaled $69.1 million in 2025, $84.73 million in 2024, $103.45 million in 2023, and $134.13 million in 2022.
$28 million – Campbell, et al. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No. 22-CV-2261 (C.D. Ill. May 11, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that Sirius XM made telephone calls to persons registered on the National Do Not Call Registry or Sirius XM’s Internal Do Not Call Registry).
$10.5 million – Fried, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., d/b/a Kaiser Permanente, Case No. 2025-016220-CA-01 (Cal. Super. Ct. Jan. 28, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from class members who alleging they received text messages sent by or on behalf of Kaiser after the person communicated that they did not wish to receive text messages by replying to the messages with a “stop” or similar opt-out instruction, in alleged violation of the TCPA and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).
$9.95 million – Jackson, et al. v. Gen Digital Inc., Case No. 25-CV-535 (D. Ariz. Jan. 28, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the cybersecurity software company wrongfully placed prerecorded telephone calls regarding a LifeLock or Norton account to consumers who did not have an account with either company, or Gen Digital, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act).
$6.5 million – Walston, et al. v. National Retail Solutions, Inc. d/b/a NRS Pay, Case No. 24-CV-083 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Jan. 14, 2026) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant placed prerecorded telemarketing telephone calls to cellular telephone numbers to individuals who did not give their prior express written consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act).
$5.975 million – Ryan, et al. v. Wilshire Law Firm, P.L.C., Case No. 2025-022621 (Fla. Cir. Ct. June 3, 2026) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant violated the TCPA by sending pre-recorded messages to cellular telephone numbers).
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Ryan T. Garippo
Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 24, 2026, in Hossfeld v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 25-1518, 2026 WL 1815908 (7th Cir. June 24, 2026), Judge Amy St. Eve, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversed a summary judgment ruling in a class action against Allstate Insurance Co. (“Allstate”) and held that the plaintiff failed to establish vicarious Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) liability for calls placed by a subcontracted telemarketer. The decision is a significant win for companies in the lead generation space and forces plaintiffs to prove downstream agency for the calls at issue.
Case Background
Allstate sells car insurance policies nationwide. To make these sales, Allstate works with insurance agents to help sell its policies. In this case, Allstate contracted with two insurance agents, Jason Fleming and Daniel Gilmond. Fleming and Daniels signed contracts, which authorized them to work with “Non‑Contracted Telemarketers,” who do not contract directly with Allstate. Id. at *2. The “Non‑Contracted Telemarketers,” however, were required to comply with Allstate’s do-not-call policies. Id.
In 2020, Fleming and Daniels retained a “Non‑Contracted Telemarketer,” called Transfer Kings, to attempt to sell Allstate policies to interested consumers. Id. But, without informing Allstate or the agents, Transfer Kings subcontracted its duty to a third company, called Atlantic, which actually placed the calls. Atlantic bought “lead” lists from a fourth company, KP Leads, which represented that the list of consumers had consented to the calls. One lead was Plaintiff Robert Hossfeld (“Hossfeld”) who had been on Allstate’s internal do-not-call registry since July 10, 2020.
In reliance on the “lead” list from KP Leads, Atlantic made twelve calls to Hossfeld, between November 2020 and February 2021, and tried to sell him Allstate insurance policies. As a result, Hossfeld sued Allstate under 47 U.S.C. §227(c)(5) of the TCPA and its internal do‑not‑call regulations under 47 C.F.R. §64.1200(d). Ultimately, Hossfeld moved for class certification and summary judgment, whereas Allstate moved for summary judgment. The district court denied class certification, but granted summary judgment for Hossfeld, holding that Allstate was vicariously liable for the calls in question. Allstate appealed the summary judgment ruling, and Hossfeld appealed the denial of class certification.
The Seventh Circuit’s Ruling
Judge St. Eve, writing for the Seventh Circuit, reversed the district court’s summary judgment holding and found that Hossfeld failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Allstate was liable for Atlantic’s calls under any agency theory.
First, Judge St. Eve reasoned that in order to impute Atlantic’s conduct to Allstate, Atlantic must be Allstate’s “subagent.” She reasoned that “subagency” exists when “a principal . . . authorize[s] its agent to appoint an additional party to perform some of the tasks the principal delegated to the agent.” Hossfeld, 2026 WL 1815908, at *4. If authorized, subagents may appoint additional subagents. Id. “But for this to occur, there must be appointing authority at each level to support an agency relationship between each subagent and the principal.” Id. Here, there was no evidence Allstate ever communicated with Transfer Kings before it hired Atlantic or even knew Transfer Kings existed before the lawsuit was filed. Allstate, therefore, did not delegate any agency decisions to Transfer Kings or authorize the hiring of additional subagents. Simply put, Fleming and Daniels likely had the authority to hire Transfer Kings on Allstate’s behalf, but Transfer Kings did not have the authority to hire Atlantic and claim that the decision should be imputed to Allstate.
Second, Judge St. Eve reasoned that Hossfeld’s second argument, i.e., that Transfer Kings had apparent authority to hire Atlantic, also failed. Apparent authority must be created by the principal’s words or conduct toward the plaintiff. In this case, Allstate was the principal. Thus, because Hossfeld offered no evidence that Allstate ever represented to him that Atlantic was its agent, or otherwise interacted with him, Hossfeld could not establish that Allstate vested Atlantic with apparent authority.
Third, Hossfeld’s last argument that “Allstate ratified Atlantic’s calls to him by accepting benefits arising from the non-compliant calls” also failed. Id. at *7. Hossfeld’s ratification theory would have required him to show Allstate knowingly accept the benefits of an unauthorized act. But “Hossfeld admit[ed] he never obtained insurance or any other services from Allstate,” and thus Allstate never retained any benefit from Hossfeld specifically. Id. Thus, the Seventh Circuit found that no reasonable jury could find that this conduct rose to the level of ratification.
Fourth, the Seventh Circuit turned to the class certification ruling and affirmed the denial of class certification. Judge St. Eve explained Hossfeld only identified 33 unique telephone numbers on Allstate’s internal do‑not‑call list that Transfer Kings or Atlantic had called as part of the same campaign to sell insurance. The Seventh Circuit has recognized that “a forty-member class is often regarded as sufficient to meet the numerosity requirement.” Id. at *9 (quoting Orr v. Shicker, 953 F.3d 490, 498 (7th Cir. 2020)) But 33 putative class members “easily” falls “below the general forty‑member benchmark.” Id. Thus, because the “only mechanism for disturbing the district court’s class certification ruling is to reverse it if . . . the court abused its discretion,” the Seventh Circuit was left with no choice but to affirm.
Implications For Companies
Hossfeld is a powerful and practical decision for companies that use telemarketing vendors, such as lead generators. Because plaintiffs must show actual or apparent authority at each level of delegation to prevail on a subagency theory, corporate counsel should ensure that multiple levels of delegation are not authorized by their companies’ vendor agreements. This prophylactic measure is the type of “easy fix” which will prevent massive class action lawsuits down the line.
Corporate counsel should also ensure that their vendor agreements require outside vendors, or lead generators, to comply with existing TCPA policies to minimize any risk that the principal should be liable for its agents’ (or subagents’) failure to follow applicable law. TCPA class actions can be devastating for an organization, and front-end compliance goes a long way.
