{"id":3126,"date":"2026-07-29T15:22:26","date_gmt":"2026-07-29T19:22:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3126"},"modified":"2026-07-29T15:22:27","modified_gmt":"2026-07-29T19:22:27","slug":"calling-out-fraud-florida-federal-court-allows-counterclaim-to-proceed-against-tcpa-plaintiff","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/07\/29\/calling-out-fraud-florida-federal-court-allows-counterclaim-to-proceed-against-tcpa-plaintiff\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cCalling\u201d Out Fraud: Florida Federal Court Allows Counterclaim To Proceed Against TCPA Plaintiff"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\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>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>a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) plaintiff’s motion to dismiss a common law fraud claim brought by the defendant.\u00a0 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\u2019s fraudulent activity early in the proceedings.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

In 2025, Plaintiff Keneisha Smith (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d or \u201cSmith\u201d) 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cSmith’s willingness to participate in the June 12, 2025, call is inconsistent with her wish not to be contacted.\u201d  Id. <\/em>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, \u201cGMHC sent a recording of the June 12, 2025 call and attached transcript of the call\u201d to its pleadings.  Id. <\/em>at *1, n.1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response, Smith moved to dismiss the counterclaims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court’s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a well-reasoned order, Judge Chappell denied Smith’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, finding \u201call of Smith’s arguments to be meritless.\u201d  Id.  <\/em>Although Smith asserted various arguments regarding the Court\u2019s jurisdiction and GMHC\u2019s requested relief, the majority of the opinion focused on the actual allegations of GMHC\u2019s counterclaim, which were sufficiently pled to survive a motion to dismiss. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In federal court, fraud claims must be pled with a heightened degree of particularity.  See <\/em>Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).  Under this standard, \u201cclaims of fraud must proffer \u2018the who, what, when, where, and how of the fraud alleged.\u2019\u201d  Smith<\/em>, 2026 WL 2089044, at *2 (quoting Omnipol, a.S. v. Worrell<\/em>, 421 F. Supp. 3d 1321, 1343 (M.D. Fla. 2019), aff’d sub nom.<\/em>, 32 F.4th 1298 (11th Cir. 2022))<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cconsent[ed] to be contacted,\u201d when coupled with her misrepresentations about her \u201cage\u201d and desire to complete \u201cenrollment,\u201d could plausibly constitute fraud.   Smith<\/em>, 2026 WL 2089044, at *3.  Judge Chappell also accepted GMHC\u2019s plausible allegations that Smith\u2019s \u201cmotivation [was] to commit fraud\u201d and the communication was orchestrated to form the basis of \u201ca lawsuit against GMHC to get money.\u201d  Id.  <\/em>Judge Chappell also independently concluded that the recording and transcript of the call supported \u201cmost, if not all, of GMHC’s allegations.\u201d  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, Judge Chappel rejected \u201cSmith’s Rule 9(b) argument\u201d and declined to dismiss the claim.  Id. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The litigation strategy in Smith<\/em> is significant for companies facing TCPA lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As many companies know, it is common for a consenting customer to invite telemarketing calls, and then \u201cdeceptively play[] along\u201d upon receipt of those calls, only to turn around and sue the caller in a TCPA class action.  Abramson v. Oasis Power LLC<\/em>, 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 \u201cunpersuasive.\u201d  Id.  <\/em>The reason that strategy is ineffective is because \u201c[p]rior express consent is an affirmative defense to a claim under the TCPA\u201d and typically must be resolved after discovery.  Murphy v. DCI Biologicals Orlando, LLC<\/em>, No. 12-CV-1459, 2013 WL 6865772., at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2013) (quotations omitted).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the benefit of discovery, companies can often demonstrate the \u201cPlaintiff invited the initial call . . . [and] further calls by playing along on the first call\u201d as a basis why a class should not be certified because it is a unique defense that \u201cwill distract from the claim to the Class’s detriment.\u201d  Sapan v. Fed. Sav. Bank<\/em>, 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<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smith<\/em> provides companies with a tool to get these facts in front of courts at the earliest stages of the litigation and shape the judge\u2019s 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 \u201cactions at common law fraud provide for the award of attorney fees and costs, as well as punitive damages.\u201d  Father & Sons, Inc. v. Taylor<\/em>, 703 N.E.2d 532, 547 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201ca defense or counterclaim defeats typicality if it is likely to become the litigation’s focus.\u201d  Hirsch v. USHealth Advisors, LLC<\/em>, 337 F.R.D. 118, 133 (N.D. Tex. 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “\u201cCalling\u201d Out Fraud: Florida Federal Court Allows Counterclaim To Proceed Against TCPA Plaintiff”<\/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":[2,89],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,127],"class_list":["post-3126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","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\/3126","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=3126"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3126\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3126"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}