{"id":3037,"date":"2026-06-30T17:41:51","date_gmt":"2026-06-30T21:41:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3037"},"modified":"2026-06-30T17:41:52","modified_gmt":"2026-06-30T21:41:52","slug":"unanimous-seventh-circuit-panel-limits-tcpa-liability-for-downstream-telemarketers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/06\/30\/unanimous-seventh-circuit-panel-limits-tcpa-liability-for-downstream-telemarketers\/","title":{"rendered":"Unanimous Seventh Circuit Panel Limits TCPA Liability For Downstream Telemarketers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Ryan T. Garippo<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0On June 24, 2026, in\u00a0Hossfeld 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> a summary judgment ruling in a class action against Allstate Insurance Co. (\u201cAllstate\u201d) and held that the plaintiff failed to establish vicarious Telephone Consumer Protection Act (\u201cTCPA\u201d) liability for calls placed by a subcontracted telemarketer.\u00a0 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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cNon\u2011Contracted Telemarketers,\u201d who do not contract directly with Allstate.  Id. <\/em>at *2.  The \u201cNon\u2011Contracted Telemarketers,\u201d however, were required to comply with Allstate\u2019s do-not-call policies.  Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2020, Fleming and Daniels retained a \u201cNon\u2011Contracted Telemarketer,\u201d called Transfer Kings, to attempt to sell Allstate policies to interested consumers.  Id.  <\/em>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 \u201clead\u201d 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 (\u201cHossfeld\u201d) who had been on Allstate\u2019s internal do-not-call registry since July 10, 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In reliance on the \u201clead\u201d 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. \u00a7227(c)(5) of the TCPA and its internal do\u2011not\u2011call regulations under 47 C.F.R. \u00a764.1200(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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Seventh Circuit\u2019s Ruling<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge St. Eve, writing for the Seventh Circuit, reversed the district court\u2019s summary judgment holding and found that Hossfeld failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Allstate was liable for Atlantic\u2019s calls under any agency theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First<\/em><\/strong>, Judge St. Eve reasoned that in order to impute Atlantic\u2019s conduct to Allstate, Atlantic must be Allstate\u2019s \u201csubagent.\u201d She reasoned that \u201csubagency\u201d exists when \u201ca principal . . . authorize[s] its agent to appoint an additional party to perform some of the tasks the principal delegated to the agent.\u201d\u00a0 Hossfeld<\/em>, 2026 WL 1815908, at *4.\u00a0 If authorized, subagents may appoint additional subagents.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em>\u201cBut for this to occur, there must be appointing authority at each level to support an agency relationship between each subagent and the principal.\u201d\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em>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.\u00a0 Allstate, therefore, did not delegate any agency decisions to Transfer Kings or authorize the hiring of additional subagents.\u00a0 Simply put, Fleming and Daniels likely had the authority to hire Transfer Kings on Allstate\u2019s behalf, but Transfer Kings did not have the authority to hire Atlantic and claim that the decision should be imputed to Allstate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second<\/em><\/strong>, Judge St. Eve reasoned that Hossfeld\u2019s second argument, i.e<\/em>., that Transfer Kings had apparent authority to hire Atlantic, also failed.\u00a0 Apparent authority must be created by the principal\u2019s words or conduct toward the plaintiff. In this case, Allstate was the principal.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third<\/em><\/strong>, <\/strong>Hossfeld\u2019s last argument that \u201cAllstate ratified Atlantic’s calls to him by accepting benefits arising from the non-compliant calls\u201d also failed.  Id. <\/em>at *7.  Hossfeld\u2019s ratification theory would have required him to show Allstate knowingly accept the benefits of an unauthorized act.  But \u201cHossfeld admit[ed] he never obtained insurance or any other services from Allstate,\u201d and thus Allstate never retained any benefit from Hossfeld specifically.  Id.  <\/em>Thus, the Seventh Circuit found that no reasonable jury could find that this conduct rose to the level of ratification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourth<\/em><\/strong>, <\/strong>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\u2019s internal do\u2011not\u2011call list that Transfer Kings or Atlantic had called as part of the same campaign to sell insurance.  The Seventh Circuit has recognized that \u201ca forty-member class is often regarded as sufficient to meet the numerosity requirement.\u201d Id. <\/em>at *9 (quoting Orr v. Shicker<\/em>, 953 F.3d 490, 498 (7th Cir. 2020)) But 33 putative class members \u201ceasily\u201d falls \u201cbelow the general forty\u2011member benchmark.\u201d  Id.  <\/em>Thus, because the \u201conly mechanism for disturbing the district court’s class certification ruling is to reverse it if . . . the court abused its discretion,\u201d the Seventh Circuit was left with no choice but to affirm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hossfeld<\/em> 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\u2019 vendor agreements.  This prophylactic measure is the type of \u201ceasy fix\u201d which will prevent massive class action lawsuits down the line.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019 (or subagents\u2019) failure to follow applicable law.  TCPA class actions can be devastating for an organization, and front-end compliance goes a long way.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Ryan T. Garippo Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0On June 24, 2026, in\u00a0Hossfeld 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 … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Unanimous Seventh Circuit Panel Limits TCPA Liability For Downstream Telemarketers”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[89],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,127],"class_list":["post-3037","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-tcpa-class-action-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Riley","first_name":"Jennifer A.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/jenniferriley.html","description":"Read Jennifer's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":127,"user_id":692,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rgarippo","display_name":"Ryan Garippo","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/09\/garipporyan-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Garippo","first_name":"Ryan","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/ryangarippo.html","description":"Read Ryan's Bio<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3037","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3037"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3037\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3040,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3037\/revisions\/3040"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3037"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3037"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3037"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3037"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}