Ever had your dinner interrupted by yet another robocall about your car’s extended warranty?
Or maybe you’ve gotten random text messages from companies you’ve never heard of?
Yeah, it’s annoying as hell.
But here’s the thing – those calls and texts might actually be illegal.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was created back in 1991 to stop businesses from bombarding you with unwanted calls.
And when companies ignore these rules?
They can end up paying massive, jaw-dropping settlements that make even the biggest corporations flinch.
We’re not talking about small change here. Some of these settlements have reached hundreds of millions of dollars.
It’s enough to make you wonder: if the potential penalties are this severe, why do companies keep risking it?
As we explore these record-breaking TCPA settlements, you might find yourself questioning both sides of the equation.
Are these penalties fair punishment for corporate overreach, or have class action lawyers found a golden goose?
Are consumers genuinely harmed by these calls, or is this just legal opportunism at work?
Whatever your perspective, one thing’s crystal clear: when it comes to the TCPA, the stakes are higher than most businesses realize – until it’s too late.
Largest TCPA Settlements and Penalties
Here’s an overview of the largest TCPA cases, with specifics of each case below the table.
| Rank | Company/Defendant | Settlement Amount | Year | Case Name/Notes |
| 1 | Multiple Companies | ~$300 Million | Various | FCC action against multiple companies |
| 2 | Dish Network | $210 Million | 2020 | DOJ settlement |
| 3 | Capital One & Collection Agencies | $75.5 Million | 2014 | Alejandro Vivero et al. v. Capital One |
| 4 | Caribbean Cruise Line | $76 Million | 2017 | Free cruise robocall settlement |
| 5 | US Coachways | $49.9 Million | 2016 | Unauthorized text messages |
| 6 | Jiffy Lube International Inc. | $47 Million | 2013/2016 | Meyer v. Jiffy Lube |
| 7 | AT&T Mobility | $45 Million | 2014-2019 | Unsolicited text messages and calls |
| 8 | Keller Williams Realty | $40 Million | 2023 | Pre-recorded robocalls |
| 9 | HSBC | $39.98 Million | 2014 | Robocalls to non-customers |
| 10 | National Grid | $38.5 Million | 2022 | Unwanted automated calls (2011-2021) |
| 11 | Sirius XM Radio | $35 Million | 2015 | Larson v. Sirius XM Radio |
| 12 | Diamond Resorts International | $35 Million | 2015 | Unwanted telemarketing calls |
| 13 | JPMorgan Chase | $34 Million | 2015 | Robocalls for debt collection |
| 14 | FreeEats.com / AIC Communications / Last Ounce of Courage | $32.4 Million | 2017 | ccAdvertising |
| 15 | Bank of America | $32 Million | 2014 | Rose v. Bank of America |
| 16 | Wells Fargo | $30.4 Million | 2017 | Autodialed overdraft alerts |
| 17 | Momentum Solar | $30 Million | 2025 | Pending (deadline: 07/31/2025) |
| 18 | Citibank N.A. | $29.5 Million | 2024 | Head v. Citibank N.A. |
| 19 | Monitronics International | $28 Million | Not specified | 7.9 million unauthorized calls |
| 20 | Sallie Mae | $24.15 Million | 2012 | Arthur et al. v. SallieMae et al. |
| 21 | Assurance IQ | $21.875 Million | Pending | Smith v. Assurance IQ, LLC |
| 22 | Encore Capital Group | $20.5 Million | 2016 | Midland Credit Management |
| 23 | Uber | $20 Million | 2017 | “Refer-a-Friend” spam texts |
| 24 | Coldwell Banker | $20 Million | 2025 | Pending (deadline: 07/03/2025) |
| 25 | Verizon Wireless | $18.5 Million | 2018 | Unsolicited faxes and marketing calls |
| 26 | Navient (Sallie Mae) | $17.5 Million | 2017 | Settlement |
| 27 | Ocwen Financial | $17.5 Million | Not specified | – |
| 28 | DirecTV | $17 Million | 2022 | Robocall/DNC violations |
| 29 | Precision Electronics Glass & Philip Rossi | $16 Million | 2012 | Addison Automatics, Inc. v. Precision Electronics |
| 30 | Papa John’s | $16.335 Million | Not specified | Promotional calls/texts |
| 31 | Cynosure Inc. | $16 Million | 2017 | – |
| 32 | CVS Pharmacy | $15 Million | Not specified | Automated flu shot reminder calls |
| 33 | Life Time Fitness | $15 Million | Not specified | Promotional spam texts |
| 34 | Clover Network | $15 Million | Not specified | Illegal text messages to DNC Registry |
| 35 | SolarCity | $15 Million | Not specified | Automated solar marketing calls |
| 36 | American Eagle Outfitters | $14.5 Million | 2016/2023 | Spam text messages |
1. Largest TCPA Penalty (Multiple Companies ~ $300 Million)
On August 3, 2023, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued its largest penalty ever under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), imposing a fine of $299,997,000 against ten companies involved in an auto warranty robocall scheme[1][3].
This massive enforcement action targeted a widespread operation that made over 5 billion illegal robocalls to more than 500 million phone numbers during just a three-month period in 2021[3].
The scheme primarily involved prerecorded voice calls to cell phones, telemarketing calls made without obtaining proper written consent, and calls placed to numbers registered on the National Do Not Call Registry – all clear violations of the TCPA[3].
The calls were related to auto warranty scams, which had become a significant nuisance for consumers across the United States.
Prior to the final penalty, the FCC had taken preliminary action in July 2022 by directing all U.S.-based voice service providers to stop carrying specified traffic connected to these auto warranty scam robocalls[3]. This initial intervention proved highly effective, resulting in a dramatic 99% reduction in the volume of such calls between June 2022 and December 2022[3].
Settlement Details
The $299,997,000 fine was unanimously approved by the FCC commissioners, demonstrating the agency’s strong commitment to enforcing TCPA regulations and protecting consumers from unlawful telemarketing practices[3]. This penalty significantly surpassed the previous record for TCPA violations – a $225 million fine proposed in June 2020 against John C. Spiller and Jakob A. Mears for making over one billion spoofed robocalls to sell health insurance plans[2].
The record-breaking penalty reflects the extraordinary scale of the violations, with over 5 billion robocalls placed in just three months[1][3]. Under the TCPA, violations of the Regulated Technology provisions (Section 227(b)) carry an automatic $500 per violation penalty, which can help explain the substantial size of the fine when multiplied by the enormous volume of illegal calls[4].
This case represents part of a broader trend of aggressive enforcement by the FCC against TCPA violators. The unanimous approval of the fine by commissioners demonstrates the bipartisan support for strict enforcement of robocall regulations[3].
Citations
https://complianceconcourse.willkie.com/articles/fcc-issues-the-largest-tcpa-penalty-ever/
https://www.mcguirewoods.com/client-resources/alerts/2023/8/record-fines-and-restrictive-rules
2. Dish Network ($210 Million)
The TCPA case against Dish Network stemmed from allegations that the company, through its own telemarketing operations and those of its authorized retailers, made millions of illegal robocalls to consumers, including those whose phone numbers were listed on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry.
The lawsuit was initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice and four states (California, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio) in 2009. It alleged Dish was responsible not only for its own direct telemarketing but also for unlawful calls made by dealers marketing Dish services.
The claims centered on Dish failing to ensure its vendors and dealers complied with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR)[2][3].
The matter was notable for the volume of violations: over 51,000 calls to 18,066 numbers as part of the private class action, and a total of over 66 million unlawful telemarketing violations were found by the court across related federal and state cases[2][3][5].
Settlement Details
- In 2017, following a jury verdict and judicial findings, Dish Network was found liable for more than 66 million telemarketing violations, resulting in a judgment of $280 million in civil penalties and damages: $168 million to the United States and $112 million to the four state plaintiffs[3][5].
- Later in 2020, Dish agreed to a reduced settlement of $210 million: $126 million to the U.S. government and $84 million divided among the four states, marking the largest civil penalty in U.S. history for telemarketing violations at the time[1][3][4]. Dish further agreed not to contest the factual findings or liability and continued to be subject to strict compliance oversight until at least 2027[1][3][4].
Citations
- Dish Network Agrees To Pay $210 Million for Vendors’ Violations In Historic Department of Justice Telemarketing Enforcement Action ([consumerfinancemonitor.com](https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/2020/12/10/dish-network-agrees-to-pay-210-million-for-vendors-violations-in-historic-department-of-justice-telemarketing-enforcement-action/))[1]
- Dish Network Do Not Call Registry TCPA Class Action Lawsuit ([topclassactions.com](https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/dish-network-not-call-registry-tcpa-class-action-lawsuit/))[2]
- Dish Network to Pay $210 Million Settlement for Telemarketing Violations ([channelfutures.com](https://www.channelfutures.com/regulation-compliance/dish-network-to-pay-210-million-settlement-for-telemarketing-violations))[3]
- Justice Department announces $210M civil penalty against DISH for telemarketing violations ([dataguidance.com](https://www.dataguidance.com/news/usa-justice-department-announces-210m-civil-penalty))[4]
- Tough Call: How to Insure TCPA Liability Risks (PDF, CRC Group) ([crcgroup.com](https://www.crcgroup.com/Portals/34/Tools%20and%20Intel/TCPA%20Liability%20Risks.pdf?ver=2021-06-14-113644-037))[5]
3. Capital One & Collection Agencies ($75.5 million)
The TCPA class action involving Capital One and associated collection agencies centered around allegations that these companies used autodialers and prerecorded voice calls to contact consumers’ cell phones without obtaining the required prior express consent.
The case, filed under the title Alejandro Vivero et al. v. Capital One, grew to become one of the largest settlements under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) at the time.
The targeted calls were attempts to collect debt, but plaintiffs argued that Capital One (along with three collection agencies) violated the TCPA by using automated dialing systems and prerecorded messages to reach consumers who had not given permission to be contacted via those means.
Settlement details
The parties agreed to settle for $75.5 million, with some reports listing the breakdown as $73.5 million from Capital One itself and $2.5 million combined from the collection agencies. This settlement provided compensation to a large nationwide class of affected consumers who had received unauthorized calls to their mobile phones.
The size of the settlement reflected the pervasive nature of the alleged violations and served as a record at the time for TCPA class actions against debt collectors and banks involving autodialed calls to cell phones without consent.
Notably, the class period covered several years’ worth of outbound collection calls, and class members were eligible to submit claims for a share of the fund created by the settlement.
The court’s approval of the settlement underscored the importance of consumer consent under the TCPA, particularly regarding calls placed using automated technology to cell phones.
Citations
4. Caribbean Cruise Line ($76 million)
This TCPA case centered on Caribbean Cruise Line and its marketing affiliates who conducted a widespread telemarketing campaign between August 2011 and August 2012[1]. The lawsuit was formally filed in May 2012 by plaintiffs Grant Birchmeir and Stephen Parkes as a proposed class action[1].
The core allegation was that Caribbean Cruise Line and its subsidiaries violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by robocalling millions of individuals with pre-recorded messages without obtaining prior express written consent[1]. These calls allegedly offered “free” cruise trips in exchange for completing a political survey[1]. The plaintiffs argued this was a deceptive marketing tactic, claiming that “the ‘free’ cruise was not free” and “the survey was simply a marketing tool with no legitimate political basis”[1].
The case was formally titled “Birchmeier et al v. Caribbean Cruise Line Inc.” and claimed that the defendants violated the TCPA by making automated survey calls that offered a free cruise as an incentive[2].
Settlement Details
Under the terms of the settlement reached, Caribbean Cruise Line and the other defendants agreed to pay between $56 million and $76 million to resolve the claims[1]. The settlement was designed to compensate approximately one million class members who received unwanted robocalls from the defendants during the specified period[1].
Citations
- https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/caribbean-cruise-line-robocall-tcpa-class-action-settlement/
- http://www.freecruisecallclassaction.net
- https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/carnival-royal-caribbean-telemarketing-class-action-settlement/comment-page-7/
- https://www.classaction.com/tcpa-robocalls/settlement/
5. US Coachways ($49.9 Million)
US Coachways, a national charter bus and bus rental company, was sued in a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in July 2014 over violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)[1][3][4].
The complaint alleged that US Coachways had sent hundreds of thousands of unauthorized, unsolicited marketing text messages—reportedly over 391,000 texts—to more than 85,000 individuals across the United States from 2011 onward[1][3][4].
These texts were sent to individuals who had either booked a trip or merely requested a quote, without obtaining proper consent as required by the TCPA[3][4].
Settlement Details
The court granted final approval to a $49.9 million settlement on November 9, 2016[1][3]. Notably:
- The settlement class includes anyone in the U.S. who received at least one text advertisement from US Coachways within the four years preceding the complaint and up to the date of settlement[1].
- There were no requests for exclusion or objections from the class, which included more than 85,000 people[1].
- US Coachways, unable to pay the massive judgment, contributed only $50,000 toward class notification costs and assigned its rights against its insurer, Illinois Union Insurance Company, to the class and the plaintiff. The plaintiffs then sought to collect the rest of the $49.9 million from Illinois Union[1][5].
Essentially, the class and plaintiffs proceeded against the insurance company to recover the full settlement amount, while US Coachways itself would not be directly liable beyond its small cash contribution and the assignment of its insurance rights[5].
Subsequent litigation centered on whether the insurer was obligated to cover the settlement.
Citations
- [Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor: $49.9 Million TCPA Class Action Settlement Granted Final Approval](https://www.consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com/2016/11/49-9-million-tcpa-class-action-settlement-granted-final-approval/)[1]
- [JD Supra: US Coachways Settles TCPA Class Action for $49.9 Million](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/us-coachways-settles-tcpa-class-action-31696/)[3]
- [Data Privacy + Security Insider: US Coachways Settles TCPA Class Action for $49.9 Million](https://www.dataprivacyandsecurityinsider.com/2016/11/us-coachways-settles-tcpa-class-action-for-49-9-million/)[4]
- [DNC.com: Court Rules $50 Million TCPA Settlement Is Covered By Insurance](https://www.dnc.com/blog/court-rules-50-million-tcpa-settlement-covered-insurance-policy)[5]
6. Jiffy Lube International Inc. ($47 million)
Jiffy Lube International Inc. faced several TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act) lawsuits related to unsolicited text messages and automated calls. The case referenced appears to be part of a consolidated class action lawsuit known as “In re Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., Text Spam Litigation” (Case No. 11-md-2261-JM) that was filed in 2011[4].
This multidistrict litigation combined various complaints against Jiffy Lube and its largest franchisee, Heartland Automotive Services Inc.
The plaintiffs alleged that Jiffy Lube and/or its franchisees sent unsolicited marketing text messages and automated calls to consumers without obtaining their prior express consent, which violates the TCPA. In one specific instance, Phillip Litchfield claimed that Heartland made two unauthorized marketing calls to his cellphone on June 11, 2014, using an automated dialing system[2]. Another plaintiff in a separate case (Turizo v. Jiffy Lube) alleged receiving unsolicited text messages requesting survey feedback from a Jiffy Lube franchisee[1].
Settlement Details
The varying amounts reported ($47 million versus $35 million) could potentially represent:
- Different stages of settlement negotiations
- Different calculations of the total settlement value
- Different cases against Jiffy Lube that were resolved at different times
Citations
7. AT&T Mobility ($45 Million)
In October 2014, AT&T Mobility agreed to a $45 million settlement to resolve allegations of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), marking one of the significant TCPA settlements of that period.
The class action lawsuit was filed by lead plaintiff Joel Hageman in a federal court in Montana. The complaint alleged that AT&T Mobility placed unwanted calls to consumers using an automated phone dialing system or pre-recorded voice messages without obtaining express consent from the telephone number owners[1].
Hageman claimed that he received more than 53 automated calls on his cellular phone over less than two years despite not being an AT&T customer and never consenting to receive such calls[1]. His lawsuit specifically mentioned receiving multiple recorded phone calls from AT&T that began with the message: “This is an important message from AT&T to discuss your wireless service”[3].
The class action covered approximately 16,000 phone numbers that allegedly received similar unauthorized calls[1][3]. The lawsuit named not only AT&T Mobility but also more than 20 debt collection agencies hired by the company that allegedly used automated dialing technology to call mobile numbers for debt collection purposes[5].
Settlement Details
After conducting expert witness depositions and a one-day mediation session, the parties reached a settlement agreement on September 30, 2014[4][5]. Key terms of the settlement included:
- AT&T Mobility agreed to pay $45 million into a settlement fund[2][4]
- Class members were eligible to receive up to $500 per unlawful call received[1][3]
- Up to one-third of the settlement amount ($15 million) was allocated for attorneys’ fees and costs[1][4]
- The lead plaintiff (Joel Hageman) was eligible for an incentive award of up to $20,000[1]
- AT&T made no admissions of wrongdoing as part of the settlement[4]
Citations
8. Keller Williams Realty ($40 million)
In 2023, Keller Williams Realty, a major privately held real estate brokerage, faced a class action lawsuit for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The lawsuit specifically accused Keller Williams agents of making unsolicited pre-recorded calls to consumers without their consent, including calls to individuals who had registered their numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.
The litigation stemmed from complaints by Beverly DeShay and similar plaintiffs, and was filed by attorneys Stefan Coleman and Avi R. Kaufman in the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Indian River County, Florida[3][5][4].
The case emphasized repeated TCPA violations, including cold calling tactics involving pre-recorded messages sent to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, an issue that had been raised in previous lawsuits against Keller Williams[5].
Settlement details
Keller Williams agreed to a $40 million settlement to resolve the class action claims. The settlement preliminarily approved by a Florida court resolves not only the DeShay case but also other related TCPA lawsuits filed against Keller Williams by the same law firm. Approximately 2 million people may be eligible for payments, but each would likely receive up to $20, much less than the $500 per violation and $1,500 per willful or knowing violation as stipulated by the TCPA[3][5][4].
The settlement required court approval to become final. Keller Williams denied any wrongdoing while agreeing to settle the claims[3][5].
Citations
9. HSBC ($39.98 million)
This case centers on allegations that HSBC violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making autodialed robocalls to individuals who were not customers of the bank. The class action lawsuit accused HSBC of using automated telephone dialing systems to place calls to consumers’ cell phones without prior express consent, a practice prohibited by the TCPA. The calls often promoted HSBC’s credit card products or tried to collect debts, but many recipients were not actual HSBC account holders[2][3].
Settlement details
HSBC agreed to pay a $39.98 million settlement, making it one of the largest TCPA settlements at the time. The case, titled Wilkins v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., was presided over by Judge James F. Holderman in the Northern District of Illinois[1][2][3]. The settlement fund was non-reversionary, ensuring that the entire amount was available for eligible class members. The settlement also praised the legal team’s professionalism and the positive impact of the resolution for consumers[1].
Citations
- https://www.lieffcabraser.com/consumer/tcpa-cases/
- https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/wilkins-v-hsbc-tcpa-class-action-settlement/
- https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/judge-approves-40m-hsbc-illegal-cellphone-call-class-action-settlement/
10. National Grid ($38.5 Million)
The National Grid TCPA case resulted in a significant $38.5 million settlement in 2022, addressing allegations of unauthorized automated calls made to consumers over a decade.
The lawsuit alleged that National Grid violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by placing automated or prerecorded calls to consumers’ cell phones without obtaining proper consent[1]. These calls reportedly concerned various topics including:
- Bill payments and account status
- “Important matters” regarding National Grid bills
- Disconnect notices
- Invitations to customer assistance expos
- Information about government assistance programs for invoice payments[5]
The alleged violations occurred over an extended period from March 9, 2011, through October 29, 2021[5].
The lawsuit charged that National Grid used automatic dialing systems and/or pre-recorded or artificial voice messages for these communications, which constituted violations of federal law protecting consumers from unlawful telemarketing practices[1][2].
Settlement Details
On June 24, 2022, U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert of the Eastern District of New York granted final approval to the $38.5 million settlement agreement[2]. The settlement included:
- A non-reversionary cash fund of $38.5 million to compensate affected consumers[2]
- Individual payments of approximately $50-$150 per claimant, with over 400,000 class members making claims[1][2]
- Each approved claimant received $50.90 as of September 12, 2022[1]
- Comprehensive business practice changes requiring National Grid to maintain TCPA compliance going forward[2]
- A commitment from National Grid to stop using pre-recorded or artificial voice calls to contact consumers who haven’t provided consent[1]
Citations
11. Sirius XM Radio ($35 million)
Larson v. Sirius XM Radio was part of a series of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) cases against Sirius XM regarding unwanted telemarketing calls.
The case appears to be related to broader litigation concerning Sirius XM’s practices of making autodialed calls to consumers without proper consent[4].
Similar to other cases against Sirius XM, the allegations likely involved the company placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers who had not provided express consent.
This is consistent with the pattern seen in other Sirius XM cases, where consumers reported receiving unwanted calls after purchasing vehicles with pre-installed Sirius XM radios or after receiving free trials of the satellite radio service[5].
Settlement Details
While the specific settlement details of the Larson case are not directly stated, there are references to a $35 million settlement amount, which would make this a significant TCPA settlement.
The case appears to have been part of legal challenges following the 2015 FCC Declaratory Ruling and Order, which addressed several TCPA issues including:
- The definition of Automatic Telephone Dialing Systems (ATDS)
- Rules regarding reassigned numbers
- The consent defense under the TCPA[1][2]
Sirius XM filed a petition challenging the FCC’s 2015 Order, arguing that it was “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, in excess of the FCC’s statutory authority, and otherwise contrary to the Constitution and other laws”[2].
A key issue in many TCPA cases against Sirius XM, which likely applied to the Larson case as well, was whether the company’s predictive dialing systems qualified as an ATDS under the TCPA definition, particularly after the ACA International decision that invalidated certain FCC interpretations regarding ATDS definitions[1][4].
Citations
12. Diamond Resorts International ($35 Million)
The lawsuit, Norman Zwicky v. Diamond Resorts, Inc., alleges that Diamond Resorts imposed hidden corporate overhead expenses through fraudulent annual budgets and reports, rendering timeshare interests worthless
The plaintiffs claim that Diamond Resorts misrepresented timeshare terms and used high-pressure tactics
- A class action lawsuit regarding deceptive high-pressure sales tactics to sell timeshare contracts[1]
- A lawsuit alleging Diamond Resorts overcharged timeshare owners through inflated annual fees[2]
- A wage and hour class action lawsuit that settled for $2.8 million[5]
Diamond Resorts International is a company that sells timeshare vacation properties and memberships[5]. The company has faced multiple legal challenges related to their business practices, but the specific TCPA case mentioned in your query is not detailed in the search results.
Settlement Details
A settlement agreement was reached, with Diamond Resorts Management, Inc. (DRMI) and Diamond Resorts International, Inc. (DRI) to pay $13,000,000 into a settlement fund.
In November 2022, the federal court in Arizona certified the lawsuit as a class action, expanding the number of plaintiffs to include every timeshare owner from a certain owner association from 2011 to 2022 4. The maximum allowable award to the class plaintiffs was around $35,000,000
Citations
13. JPMorgan Chase ($34 Million)
The JPMorgan Chase TCPA settlement involves a $34 million settlement of a class action lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase Bank for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)[1, 2]
The lawsuit, Gehrich v. Chase Bank USA NA, alleges that Chase Bank contacted consumers on their cell phones using an automated dialing system without prior express consent between July 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2013
Settlement Details
The settlement provides class members with $20 to $40 for each phone call or text message they received from Chase Bank. Class members include those who received SMS or voice alerts and those who received debt collection calls via an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded voice
Citations
14. FreeEats.com / AIC Communications / Last Ounce of Courage ($32.4 million)
The case, officially known as *Golan v. FreeEats.com, Inc.*, involved more than 3 million robocalls made in a single week to promote the film *Last Ounce of Courage*, which was advertised as a “story about taking a stand for religious freedom.”
The marketing campaign included pre-recorded messages voiced by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Recipients initially heard survey questions about “American freedom and liberty” and “religious freedom.”
If they remained on the call and responded affirmatively, they were then played a message about the film itself[2]. These calls were executed by FreeEats.com, AIC Communications, and ccAdvertising using automated dialing and pre-existing call lists. The companies believed that the recipients had consented to be contacted for topics related to religious liberty, based on prior interactions[1].
Plaintiffs in the case had received two such calls and filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), challenging the unsolicited and automated nature of the calls[2].
Settlement Details
A jury initially found the defendants liable for 3,242,493 violations of the TCPA and assessed the statutory minimum of $500 per call, resulting in a staggering $1.6 billion award. However, the trial court determined that such an award would be unconstitutionally excessive and violate the Due Process Clause.
The damages were therefore drastically reduced from $500 to $10 per call, resulting in a final award of approximately $32.4 million. This 98% reduction was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals after the plaintiffs appealed the decision[1][2][4].
The case stands out as one of the largest-ever TCPA damages awards, even after the reduction, and highlights ongoing judicial concerns about the proportionality and constitutionality of massive aggregate penalties under federal statutes like the TCPA[3][4].
Citations
- [Mintz: Eighth Circuit upholds 98% reduction in TCPA damages in Golan v. FreeEats.com](https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2776/2019-07-tcpa-class-action-update-eighth-circuit-upholds-98)
- [National Law Review: Eighth Circuit Rules Against Telemarketing Company in TCPA Claim](https://natlawreview.com/article/eighth-circuit-finds-telemarketer-s-plausible-belief-consent-to-calls-supports)
- [ClassAction.com: TCPA Robocalls Settlements](https://www.classaction.com/tcpa-robocalls/settlement/)
- [National Law Review: $1.6 Billion Damages in FreeEats Suit Ruled Unconstitutional](https://natlawreview.com/article/eighth-circuit-rules-against-telemarketing-company-tcpa-claim-yet-declares-16)
15. Bank of America ($32 Million)
Bank of America and FIA Card Services agreed to pay over $32 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Plaintiffs claimed the companies systematically called or texted consumers’ cell phones using automatic telephone dialing systems (ATDS) and/or prerecorded or artificial voices, without obtaining the recipients’ prior express consent, as required by the TCPA12.
Settlement details
The settlement class included approximately 7 million individuals who received non-emergency, default servicing calls or texts about Bank of America credit card accounts or residential mortgage loans between 2007 and 2013
Citations
16. Wells Fargo – $30.4 Million TCPA Settlement
Wells Fargo faced a class action lawsuit, *Cross v. Wells Fargo Bank*, filed in Georgia federal court by plaintiff Kenisha Cross.
The lawsuit alleged that Wells Fargo used an automatic telephone dialing system (autodialer) and/or artificial or prerecorded voice technology to call or text consumers’ cell phones with overdraft alerts between April 21, 2011, and December 19, 2015, without obtaining prior express consent.
Cross claimed she was not a Wells Fargo customer but repeatedly received robocalls and texts after notifying the bank to stop. This action violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal law designed to protect consumers from unwanted telemarketing and robocalls without consent[1][2][3].
Settlement Details
Wells Fargo denied any wrongdoing or illegal conduct but agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid the uncertainties and costs of litigation.
The settlement provided a fund of approximately $30,446,022 to compensate class members—an estimated 6.5 million individuals who, during the class period, received such autodialed overdraft-related calls or texts from Wells Fargo.
Qualified claimants received payments, which varied but reportedly amounted to as much as $42.19 per person depending on the number of valid claims submitted. The settlement did not require Wells Fargo to admit liability but did resolve all claims relating to these alleged TCPA violations[1][2][3][4][5].
Citations
- [TCPA Suit Concludes With Wells Fargo Agreeing To $30.4M Settlement (Geraci Law Firm)](https://geracilawfirm.com/tcpa-suit-concludes-with-wells-fargo-agreeing-to-30-4m-settlement/)[1]
- [Wells Fargo Robocall, Text Spam Class Action Settlement (Top Class Actions)](https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/wells-fargo-robocall-tex-spam-class-action-settlement/)[2]
- [Wells Fargo Robocall Class Action Settlement Checks Mailed (Top Class Actions)](https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/wells-fargo-robocall-class-action-settlement-checks-mailed/)[3]
- [Wells Fargo Scores Initial OK For $30M TCPA Settlement (Law360)](https://www.law360.com/articles/830131/wells-fargo-scores-initial-ok-for-30m-tcpa-settlement)[4]
- [Wells Fargo Settles TCPA Class Action (Atlas Law Center)](https://www.atlaslawcenter.com/blog/wells-fargo-settles-tcpa-class-action/)
17. Momentum Solar ($30 Million)
Momentum Solar, officially known as Pro Custom Solar LLC, faced two class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The lawsuits accused Momentum Solar of placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers without their consent, in an effort to promote the company’s solar installation services[1][2][3][5].
Consumers who received two or more telemarketing calls within a 365-day period (from March 5, 2015, to January 2, 2025) and who were not Momentum Solar customers, were named in the class[1][2][3][5].
Momentum Solar denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid further litigation costs and risks associated with trial[3].
Settlement Details
Total Settlement Amount: Up to $30 million, to be paid over 15 years. An initial $1 million payment is due within 90 days of final approval, with additional payments scheduled annually[2].
Payout Structure: Cash payments are distributed on a pro-rata basis per validated call, for up to 50 calls per claimant. The final payment will depend on the number of valid claims and the settlement fund balance[2][3][5].
Citations
- [ClassAction.org: Up to $30M Momentum Solar Settlement Ends Class Action Lawsuits Over Alleged Robocalls](https://www.classaction.org/news/up-to-30m-momentum-solar-settlement-ends-class-action-lawsuits-over-alleged-robocalls)[1]
- [Top Class Actions: $30M Momentum Solar calls class action settlement](https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/open-lawsuit-settlements/30m-momentum-solar-calls-class-action-settlement/)[2]
- [Claim Depot: Momentum Solar TCPA $20M Class Action Settlement](https://www.claimdepot.com/settlements/solar-tcpa-settlement)[3]
- [SolarTCPASettlement.com: Settlement Website](https://www.solartcpasettlement.com)[4]
- [Class Action Champion: Momentum Solar Agrees to $30 Million Settlement](https://classactionchampion.com/settlements/momentum-solar-agrees-to-30-million-settlement-over-unsolicited-telemarketing-calls)[5]
18. Head v. Citibank N.A. ($29.5 million)
Head v. Citibank N.A. is a class action lawsuit that alleges Citibank violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making unauthorized robocalls and using prerecorded messages to non-customers regarding past-due credit card accounts[1][2].
The lawsuit specifically claims that Citibank called consumers who were not current or former Citibank customers about overdue credit card balances they were not responsible for[2][3].
The case involves calls made between August 15, 2014, and July 31, 2024[2]. The lawsuit was filed by Christine Head and another plaintiff named Newton, who served as the class representatives[5]. The Court certified this matter as a class action on January 27, 2022, as noted in court documents[5].
Settlement Details
Citibank agreed to create a settlement fund of $29.5 million to resolve the TCPA claims[1][2]. This fund is non-reversionary and will cover class payments, notice costs, legal fees, and other expenses related to the settlement[3].
The settlement benefits consumers who:
- Are not current or former Citibank customers
- Received one or more prerecorded calls or robocalls from Citibank
- Were contacted regarding a past-due credit card account
- Received calls between August 15, 2014, and July 31, 2024[2]
Under the settlement terms, class members who submit valid claims will receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Each claimant is estimated to receive between $350 and $850[2].
Citations
https://headtcpasettlement.com
https://www.lawinc.com/robocall-reckoning-citibank-tcpa-settlement-unveiled
https://headtcpasettlement.com/frequently-asked-questions.aspx
19. Monitronics International ($28 million)
Monitronics International Inc., a security alarm monitoring firm, agreed to pay $28 million to settle a multidistrict class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)[1][3].
Background
The first lawsuit against Monitronics was filed in May 2011 by plaintiff Diana Mey. By December 2013, this case was consolidated with more than 30 similar TCPA lawsuits under the case name “In re: Monitronics International Inc. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation”[2][3].
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (Case No. 1:13-md-02493)[3]. The plaintiffs alleged that Monitronics violated the TCPA by:
- Making automated telephone calls to cell phones using automatic telephone dialing systems
- Using artificial or prerecorded voices for telemarketing calls
- Calling phone numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry
- Contacting recipients who had not provided their consent[1][2]
Monitronics was accused of these violations both directly and through their authorized dealers, subdealers, and vendors for whom they were considered vicariously liable[5].
Settlement Details
The settlement was reached in 2017 and included the following key elements:
- A $28 million settlement fund to compensate affected consumers[1][5]
- Class eligibility for individuals who received telemarketing calls from Monitronics or on behalf of Monitronics authorized dealers since May 18, 2007[2][5]
- Expected compensation between $12 and $25 per class member[5]
- Deadline of February 20, 2018 for class members to opt out or object to the settlement[2]
The settlement only applied to Monitronics and did not include the other defendants in the litigation, namely Honeywell, Alliance Security Inc., UTC Fire & Security Inc., and Alarm.com[1][5].
According to the settlement documentation, Monitronics’ insurance companies disputed whether their policies covered these types of claims. The plaintiffs were described as having “steadfastly advocated for substantial settlement relief, but at the same time were pragmatic about Monitronics’ ability to pay a large judgment in excess of insurance proceeds”[1].
While Monitronics agreed to the settlement, the company denied any wrongdoing and settled to avoid the burden and expense of ongoing litigation[2].
Citations
20. Sallie Mae ($24.15 million)
Arthur v. Sallie Mae, Inc. (Class Action No. 10-cv-00198-JLR) was a significant TCPA case filed on February 2, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington[2].
The lawsuit alleged that Sallie Mae violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by placing collection calls to consumers using an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) and/or artificial or prerecorded voice without obtaining proper consent[2].
The case encompassed a class of individuals who received non-emergency telephone calls to their cellular phones from Sallie Mae, Inc. or any other affiliate or subsidiary of SLM Corporation between October 27, 2005, and September 14, 2010[1]. These calls were made using an automated dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the TCPA[1].
Multiple plaintiffs were involved in the case, including Joseph Fostano, Khalilah Mendez, Mauva Thompson, Nicole Berg, James Fiano, Lawrence Sclafani, Kenyatta Thomas, Lysenia Muir, and Adalys Ayarsa[1]. The Court certified an Amended Settlement Class for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)[1].
Settlement Details
On September 17, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington approved a $24.15 million settlement in the case[4]. The settlement addressed approximately 7,880,040 text messages that were sent by Sallie Mae in violation of the TCPA[1].
The settlement included a comprehensive release of claims related to the defendants’ efforts to contact or attempt to contact Settlement Class Members, specifically including claims under the TCPA[5]. This release was effective as of the date of the final judgment in the Arthur Settlement action[5].
The court held a final hearing on September 14, 2012, during which it considered all papers filed and proceedings in the matter before approving the settlement[3]. Some objections to the settlement were filed, but the Court found them to be meritless and overruled them[1].
The case has been cited in subsequent TCPA litigation, including Malta v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., demonstrating its significance as a precedent in TCPA class action settlements[1].
Citations
- https://casetext.com/case/arthur-v-sallie-mae-2
- https://www.indianaconsumerlawyerblog.com/sallie_mae_allegedly_violates/
- https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914e322add7b049348f7f42/amp
- https://www.troutman.com/insights/tcpa-another-warning-of-the-threat-of-significant-damages.html
- https://library.nclc.org/sites/default/files/field_media_file/2024-05/Weiss_v_Sallie_Mae.pdf
21. Assurance IQ ($21.875 million)
Smith v. Assurance IQ, LLC was a class action lawsuit filed in the Chancery Division of the Cook County Illinois Court (Case No. 2023-CH-09225)[1][4]. The case centered on allegations that Assurance IQ, LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making unwanted robocalls to consumers[3].
The lawsuit originated from claims that Assurance IQ placed calls using artificial or prerecorded voices between October 1, 2018, and March 6, 2024, without obtaining proper consent from recipients[3]. A plaintiff in Arizona specifically alleged that Assurance IQ called his cell phone sixteen times in June 2022 without his consent, with at least two calls using artificial or prerecorded voice messages. Court documents indicate Assurance IQ did not challenge the claim that they used an automatic telephone dialing system without prior express consent[5].
Assurance IQ is (or was) an online health care insurance marketplace that provided quotes from multiple insurance providers. It was acquired by Prudential in 2019, but was reportedly shut down in 2024[3][5].
Settlement Details
The parties reached a settlement agreement for $21.875 million to resolve the class action lawsuit, although Assurance IQ did not admit any wrongdoing[3][4]. The settlement received final approval on September 3, 2024, contrary to the “pending final approval” mentioned in the query[3][4].
Citations
- https://www.assurancetcpasettlement.com
- https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2022cv01732/1313280/25/
- https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/assurance-iq-tcpa-21-875m-class-action-settlement/
- https://www.gdrlawfirm.com/Assurance-IQ-TCPA
- https://www.compliancepoint.com/marketing-compliance/assurance-iq-tcpa-settlement-the-lessons-learned/
22. Encore Capital Group ($20.5 Million)
Midland Credit Management Inc., a debt collection company affiliated with Encore Capital Group, faced multiple class action lawsuits regarding alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The legal challenges began in 2011 when consumers started filing individual TCPA lawsuits against Midland[1]. These cases were eventually consolidated in October of that year into multidistrict litigation[1].
The core allegation in these lawsuits was that Midland used an automatic telephone dialing system (autodialer) to place repeated debt collection calls to consumers’ cell phones without obtaining their prior express consent[1][2].
Specifically, plaintiffs Christopher Robinson, Eduardo Tovar, and Dave Scardina claimed they received multiple harassing calls at all hours of the day from Midland Funding, Midland Credit Management, and Encore Capital Group[2]. The plaintiffs maintained that they never provided their cell phone numbers to the company or its agents, nor did they consent to receive collection calls on their cell phones[2].
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had previously taken action against Midland regarding its debt collection practices, requiring the company to adjust its robocalling practices. However, the CFPB order only applied to approximately 11,000 accounts, while the class action involved over 6 million affected consumers[1].
Settlement Details
Midland Credit Management agreed to a $20.5 million settlement to resolve the consolidated TCPA class action lawsuits[1]. The settlement class included approximately 41 million potential class members, with six million class members being contacted directly about the settlement. Of those contacted, only 400 opted out of the deal[1].
Under the settlement terms:
- Class members who no longer had a debt account with Midland would receive approximately $23.49 each
- Class members who still had accounts with Midland would receive around $58.54 each[1]
Citations
23. Uber ($20 Million)
Uber agreed to pay $20 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it sent unsolicited text messages to individuals in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The lawsuit arose from Uber’s marketing practices, specifically as part of its “refer-a-friend” recruitment campaigns, which sought to encourage people to sign up as Uber drivers by sending promotional text messages—even to those who had not given their consent or shown any interest in Uber’s services[1][3][5].
The refer-a-friend program, which incentivized existing drivers to urge their contacts to become drivers, was at the center of many unsolicited text issues—drivers could trigger automatic text message invitations through Uber’s platform[3].
Settlement Details
- Uber settled the lawsuit for $20 million in August 2017 to resolve the ongoing litigation in both Illinois and California federal courts[1][3][5].
- Under the settlement, Uber agreed to end (or significantly alter) its refer-a-friend messaging program related to driver solicitation, which was at the root of the TCPA violations[3].
- The settlement established a fund to compensate all members of the affected class who received these unsolicited texts over the previous several years[4].
- The company denied any wrongdoing or liability, but opted for settlement due to the risks, duration, and uncertainty involved in further litigation and class certification[1][5].
- The TCPA permits statutory damages between $500 and $1,500 per violation, making potential exposure significant in cases involving automated marketing communications to broad groups of recipients[3][5].
Citations
- [Expert Institute: Uber To Pay $20 Million To End TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages](https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/uber-to-pay-20-million-to-end-tcpa-suit-over-unwanted-text-messages/)[1]
- [Rideshare Accidents: Uber Rideshare Class Action Settlement at $20M](https://rideshareaccidents.com/uber-rideshare-class-action-settlement/)[3]
- [Top Class Actions: Uber Reaches $20M Text Message Spam Class Action Settlement](https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/uber-reaches-20m-text-message-spam-class-action-settlement/)[5]
- [Top Class Actions: Uber Text Message Spam Class Action Settlement](https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/uber-text-message-spam-class-action-settlement/)[4]
24. Coldwell Banker ($20 Million)
The lawsuit, initially filed in the Northern District Court of California in 2019, claimed that Coldwell Banker-affiliated real estate agents made unsolicited telemarketing calls to individuals registered on the National Do Not Call Registry (NDNC) and used prerecorded messages provided by Mojo Dialing Solutions[2][3].
The case involves approximately 298,494 class members and an estimated 700,000 phone calls made by Realogy agents affiliated with the Coldwell Banker franchise between 2015 and 2020[2]. The lawsuit’s NDNC class spans 131,892 telephone numbers, while the prerecorded message class includes 201,001 numbers[2].
The plaintiffs alleged that Realogy’s motivation in allowing its affiliated agents to violate the TCPA was to grow its market share of residential property listings[3]. These Coldwell Banker-affiliated agents reportedly used auto dialers and lead generation platforms like Mojo, Phone Burner, and Storm Dialer to conduct cold calls[2].
Settlement Details
Realogy Holdings Corp. has agreed to pay $20 million to settle the class action lawsuit[1][2][4].
Citations
https://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news/realogy-settles-tcpa-class-action-lawsuit-20m
https://www.inman.com/2025/04/18/coldwell-banker-agrees-to-pay-20m-to-settle-spam-case
25. Verizon Wireless ($18.5 million)
Verizon Wireless faced a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action lawsuit that resulted in a substantial settlement.
The case was filed in the federal court for the Central District of California against Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, alleging violations of the TCPA[4]. The lawsuit involved two primary classes of consumers:
- Individuals who allegedly received calls placed by or on behalf of Verizon through use of an autodialer without providing Verizon with the required prior express consent
- Consumers who allegedly received calls from Verizon despite being registered on the National Do Not Call Registry[4]
The lawsuit addressed Verizon’s telemarketing practices, specifically targeting unsolicited marketing calls to consumers.
Settlement Details
The settlement resulted in Verizon agreeing to pay $18.5 million to resolve the TCPA violations. Based on information from class members, some individuals received significant compensation, with one claimant reporting receiving about $9,000 in total based on the number of shares[1]. Other class members received varying amounts, with some checks worth as much as $508.08 that began to be mailed out on August 15 (year not specified in the sources)[1].
The settlement administration was handled via email, with claimants able to contact the settlement administrator at a dedicated email address for inquiries about claim status[1]. The distribution of checks appears to have been done in multiple parts for some recipients.
While not all settlement details are explicitly covered in the search results specific to this case, the information suggests a significant payout structure that varied based on individual circumstances related to the violations experienced.
Citations
26. Navient (Sallie Mae) $17.5 Million Settlement
Navient Solutions Inc. (formerly known as Sallie Mae) faced multiple TCPA lawsuits alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The primary allegations came from plaintiffs Shelly Toure, Tony Heard, and Randy Johnson, who claimed that Navient made numerous calls to their cellphones without consent using automated dialing systems[1].
Navient was the largest student loan servicer in the United States at the time of the CFPB’s lawsuit in 2017, servicing student loans of more than 12 million borrowers and managing over $300 billion in federal and private student loans[3]. The company was led by CEO Jack Remondi during the period covering these violations[3].
The allegations involved unsolicited robocalls that violated consumer protection laws, with separate but similar class action lawsuits that were eventually coordinated in Indiana federal court[1]. Randy Johnson’s proposed class covered consumers who received calls from May 4, 2011, to March 7, 2016, while Toure and Heard’s proposed class began on March 8, 2016[1].
Settlement Details
The settlement amount was $17.5 million to resolve the TCPA violations[1][4]. This settlement received final approval in the Southern District of Indiana (Case No. 1:15-cv-0716-LJM-MJD)[5].
According to some sources, Navient Solutions agreed to pay $19.7 million to settle existing claims related to illegal calls and texts made between May 4, 2011, and January 6, 2017[2]. The discrepancy in amounts ($17.5M vs $19.7M) might be due to different aspects of the settlement or reporting variations.
Consumers urged an Indiana federal judge to give preliminary approval for the settlement that would resolve various allegations of TCPA violations against Navient[1]. The settlement was part of a broader pattern of legal issues for Navient, which has faced multiple regulatory actions in recent years.
Citations
https://jibraellaw.com/19-7-million-settlement-against-navient-for-debt-harassment
27. Ocwen Financial ($17.5 Million)
Ocwen Financial, through its subsidiary Ocwen Loan Servicing, was accused of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making unsolicited autodialed phone calls to consumers without their consent[1][2].
This case involved two consolidated putative class actions that alleged Ocwen knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA by using automated telephone dialing systems to call people’s cellphones without obtaining proper consent[2].
The putative class included more than 1.6 million consumers who had allegedly received these unauthorized calls[2][4].
The case also resolved related claims from a connected TCPA lawsuit, *Snyder, et al. v. U.S. Bank NA, et al.*, which sought to hold certain trustees accountable for Ocwen’s calls[1].
Settlement Details
Ocwen initially agreed to a $17.5 million settlement to resolve these TCPA claims[1][2][4]. Under the terms of the proposed settlement:
- The $17.5 million would be distributed among qualifying class members who filed valid and timely claims[1]
- Eligible consumers would receive between $55 and $90, depending on their individual claims[2][4]
- The settlement fund would also cover incentive awards of $25,000 for each of the three named plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit[4]
- Class counsel would receive attorney fees of up to one-third of the total settlement fund (approximately $5.8 million) plus reimbursement for expenses up to $100,000[4]
- Any remaining funds after all payments would be donated to the National Consumer Law Center and the Public Justice Foundation, with none reverting back to Ocwen[4]
Beyond the monetary compensation, Ocwen agreed to make changes to its procedures to ensure future outgoing autodialed calls would only be made with the consent of the person being called[1].
For future TCPA violations occurring after October 6, 2017, Ocwen agreed to pay enhanced damages of up to $1,500 per call for certain types of autodialed calls, though this provision did not apply to class action claims[1][4].
Interestingly, in September 2018, a court refused to approve this settlement in an unprecedented rejection. The court found that the $17.5 million settlement amount might not be sufficient to compensate class members adequately, suggesting that class counsel may have “sold the case short”[5]. The court’s rebuke was particularly notable given that the settlement amount of $10.25 per class member was actually above the market value for typical TCPA settlements[5].
Citations
https://www.carolinalaw.com/2017/11/ocwen-loan-servicing-settles-class-action-law-suit-17-5-million/
https://www.chicagobusinesslitigationlawyerblog.com/ocwen-tcpa-class-action-settles/
28. DirecTV ($17 million)
DirecTV faced multiple TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act) lawsuits related to unsolicited telemarketing calls.
The primary case that resulted in a $17 million settlement involved lead plaintiffs Jenny Brown and Carmen Montijo, who filed a complaint in California District Court[5].
The lawsuit alleged that DirecTV hired several third-party agencies—specifically iQor, Credit Management, Enhanced Recovery, and AFNI—to make debt collection calls[5][4]. According to the settlement notice, these agencies called at least 220,000 unique wrong numbers belonging to individuals who never ordered DirecTV services[5].
The plaintiffs claimed that DirecTV “either knew or consciously avoided knowing” about these improper telemarketing practices[5].
Settlement Details
DirecTV agreed to a $17 million settlement in 2022 to resolve claims that it violated the TCPA through unsolicited and prerecorded telemarketing calls[1][3]. The settlement specifically addressed calls made by debt collectors working on DirecTV’s behalf, including Credit Management, iQor, AFNI, and Enhanced Recovery Co., who allegedly made prerecorded calls without consent[4].
The settlement came shortly before DirecTV faced yet another TCPA lawsuit. Just days after filing preliminary approval papers for the $17 million settlement on July 29, 2022, a court in West Virginia certified a different class action lawsuit (Vance v. DirecTV, LLC) on August 1, 2022[2]. This separate case involved marketing calls allegedly made by one of DirecTV’s authorized retailers to numbers on the Do Not Call list without express written consent, potentially exposing the company to around $100 million in damages[2].
Citations
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/consumer/tcpa-cases/
29. Precision Electronics Glass & Philip Rossi ($16 million)
Background
Addison Automatics, Inc. filed a class action lawsuit against Precision Electronics Glass, Inc. and Philip Rossi in 2010, alleging that the defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)[1]. The case was filed in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 10-CV-06903)[4].
The plaintiff’s complaint centered on unsolicited fax advertisements sent by the defendants. Specifically, Addison Automatics claimed that Precision Electronics Glass and Philip Rossi sent marketing faxes without prior consent in violation of the TCPA, which prohibits sending unsolicited advertisements via fax[1].
The lawsuit alleged that Precision sent “the same and other unsolicited facsimiles without the required opt-out language to Plaintiff and more than 25 other recipients”[5]. This is a key element of TCPA violations, as the law requires that even if a business relationship exists or prior permission was obtained, fax advertisements must include specific opt-out notice language[5].
Settlement Details
The case ultimately resulted in a settlement between the parties. On February 20, 2013, the Court granted final approval of the settlement agreement between Addison Automatics and Precision Electronics Glass[2].
In this insurance coverage dispute, Addison argued that the TCPA exclusions in the insurance policies were invalid due to inadequate notification of the policy change under New Jersey law (where the policies were issued)[1].
The Appeals Court ultimately denied any recovery to Addison in the insurance case and remanded the matter “for entry of a new declaration consistent with this memorandum and order”[1].
Citations
- https://agencychecklists.com/2022/02/15/ma-appeals-court-reverses-7-million-telephone-consumer-protection-act-judgment-against-peerless-insurances-subsidiaries-57127/
- https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/legal-alert-multi-million-dollar-settle-40754/
- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_14-cv-13710/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_14-cv-13710-1.pdf
- https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-02/CAFA-Notice-September-2012.pdf
- https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/amicus/tcpa/pdr/PDR-v-Carlton-and-Harris-Chiro-SDWV-Plaintiff-Response-to-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf
30. Papa John’s — $16.335 Million TCPA Case
In 2010, Papa John’s was sued in a nationwide class action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The plaintiffs claimed they received over 500,000 unsolicited text messages advertising pizza specials from Papa John’s and its franchisees, sent without consumer consent using an automatic dialing system.
The marketing company OnTime4U was allegedly hired by some Papa John’s franchisees to send these messages. This practice led to a surge of complaints, with some customers saying they received dozens of text messages, some even late at night[2][5].
Papa John’s argued that customers consented by providing their phone numbers to the pizza chain and further contended that, as a franchisor, it was not liable for actions of independent franchisees.
However, the court found evidence indicating Papa John’s played a role in encouraging or directing franchisees to engage in this text-message marketing[2].
Settlement Details
In May 2013, Papa John’s agreed to settle the lawsuit for up to $16.335 million. The settlement included:
- Up to $11 million in cash payments to an estimated 220,000 customers who received at least one unsolicited text message
- Free pizza vouchers valued at $2.86 million for class members submitting valid claims
- $2.45 million for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees
- $250,000 for administrative court costs
- $25,000 for representative class members[1][2][3]
Each affected customer could receive approximately $50 in cash and a free pizza. The settlement was reached with no admission of wrongdoing from Papa John’s, but it marked a significant accountability moment under the TCPA for unsolicited automated marketing[1][3]. The case was also notable for clarifying that recipients did not need to be charged directly for the text messages to have standing under the TCPA.
Citations
- [Klein Moynihan Turco LLP: Papa John’s To Pay $16.335 Million To Settle TCPA Class Action](https://kleinmoynihan.com/papa-johns-to-pay-16-335-million-to-settle-tcpa-class-action/)[1]
- [Top Class Actions: Papa John’s Agrees to $16.5M Text Spam Class Action Settlement](https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/papa-john-s-agrees-to-16-5m-text-spam-class-action-settlement/)[2]
- [HKM: Firm History – Class-Action Lawsuit against Papa John’s](https://hkm.com/firm-history-class-action-lawsuit-papa-johns/)[3]
- [FindLaw: Papa John’s Text Message Spam Leads to Class-Action Suit](https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/technologist/papa-johns-text-message-spam-leads-to-class-action-suit/)[5]
31. Cynosure Inc. ($16 Million)
Cynosure Inc., a company that specializes in aesthetic treatment systems and technologies, was involved in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action lawsuit for sending unsolicited fax advertisements[1][5].
The class action focused on allegations that the company had violated federal law by distributing marketing materials via fax without proper consent from the recipients[1].
This type of violation falls under the TCPA regulations that prohibit sending unsolicited advertisements by fax without prior express permission or an established business relationship with clear opt-out instructions.
The class period for the fax violations appears to have initially covered faxes sent between July 27, 2012, and a date in early 2017[5]. The case highlights the continuing trend of TCPA litigation related specifically to fax marketing, which has been an area of substantial legal risk for companies engaging in such practices[1].
Settlement Details
Cynosure agreed to settle the TCPA class action lawsuit in January 2017 by establishing a settlement fund of up to $16 million[1][2][4]. According to the settlement terms:
- The settlement amount ranged between $6.5 million and $16 million, with the final payout dependent on the number of class members who filed valid claims[3].
- Class notifications were scheduled to be sent on or about February 14, 2017[1].
- The deadline for class members to file objections to the settlement was April 17, 2017[1].
- The company recorded a liability in connection with the settlement in their financial filings[3].
This case was notable as one of many significant TCPA settlements in this time period, ranking among other major TCPA settlements from companies like Wells Fargo, Capital One, and Caribbean Cruise Line[2][4]. The substantial settlement amount reflects the serious financial consequences companies can face for TCPA violations.
Citations
https://kleinmoynihan.com/cynosure-settles-fax-tcpa-class-action-for-16-million
https://www.classaction.com/tcpa-robocalls/settlement
http://pdf.secdatabase.com/1758/0001193125-17-020385.pdf
32. CVS Pharmacy ($15 Million)
CVS Pharmacy agreed to a $15 million settlement to resolve claims that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by using automated phone calls (robocalls) to remind consumers about flu shots.
The calls, which took place during a 2013 campaign, were allegedly sent to over 200,000 individuals using an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) with prerecorded messages.
These reminders not only provided information about flu shots but also included promotional content such as coupons, discounts, perks, and gift cards[1][2][3][4].
The plaintiffs argued that these calls constituted unlawful telemarketing under the TCPA because they were unsolicited and made for a combination of medical reminders and promotional purposes.
CVS denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle in order to avoid the uncertainties, expenses, and delays associated with protracted litigation and potential appeals[2][3][4].
Settlement Details
- CVS agreed to deposit $15 million into a non-reversionary settlement fund.
- Each class member is expected to receive approximately $35, with most distributions occurring automatically without needing to submit claims[1][2][3][4].
- The settlement class includes Illinois residents who received cell phone calls from CVS Pharmacy featuring a prerecorded flu shot reminder and promotional offer during 2013.
- The fund will also cover notice and administration costs, as well as court-approved attorney fees (up to $5 million) and a $15,000 incentive award to the named plaintiff[1].
- Any unclaimed funds will be distributed to the Illinois Bar Foundation as a cy pres recipient[1].
- CVS continues to deny any violation of law and maintains that many call recipients had provided their numbers and implied consent to be contacted[4].
Citations
- [CVS Settles Nationwide TCPA Class Action Relating to Flu Shot Calls for $15M – Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor](https://www.consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com/2019/08/cvs-settles-nationwide-tcpa-class-action-relating-to-flu-shot-calls-for-15m/)[1]
- [CVS Class Action Over Flu Shot Calls Settles For $15M – Top Class Actions](https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/tcpa/cvs-class-action-over-flu-shot-calls-settles-for-15m/)[2]
- [CVS agrees to the $15M settlement of Robocall in TCPA – Shamis & Gentile](https://shamisgentile.com/tcpa-settlement-cvs-robocall-violations/)[3]
- [CVS Agrees to $15M Robocall Settlement in TCPA Class Action – Top Class Actions](https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/tcpa/cvs-agrees-to-15m-robocall-settlement-in-tcpa-class-action/)[4]
33. Life Time Fitness ($15 Million)
Life Time Fitness faced a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited, automated promotional text messages to consumers’ cellphones without their express consent.
The texts, sent between January 1, 2014, and April 15, 2014, advertised special deals, packages, and offers, with nearly 600,000 people potentially affected[2][3][5].
The suit claimed these mass, automated texts shifted advertising costs onto consumers, who had to pay their wireless carriers for the messages[4].
The TCPA requires companies to obtain express written consent before sending automated marketing messages to consumers, a rule that became stricter from October 16, 2013. Life Time Fitness argued that people who gave their phone numbers before this date could still be considered to have provided consent, but the plaintiffs disputed this claim[3].
Settlement Details
To resolve the litigation, Life Time Fitness agreed to pay between $10 million and $15 million to settle the TCPA class action—the exact amount depending on the total number of valid claims submitted by class members[1][2][4][5].
Under the court-approved settlement, class members who received the texts could select one of three options:
- A three-month free membership at a Life Time Fitness Gold Club
- A $250 credit towards a new or existing membership
- A $100 cash award[4][5]
Citations
[1] https://kleinmoynihan.com/life-time-fitness-to-pay-up-to-15-million-to-settle-tcpa-class-action/
[2] https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/life-time-fitness-tcpa-class-action-settlement/
[3] https://www.meyerwilson.com/blog/life-time-fitness-agrees-to-10-15-million-class-action-settlement-over-tcpa-violations/
[4] https://www.americanspa.com/commercial-clubs/life-time-fitness-reaches-possible-15-million-settlement-tcpa-class-action-suit
[5] https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/plaintiffs-lead-counsel-v-890526551
34. Clover Network ($15 Million)
The TCPA case against Clover Network LLC, officially titled Bobo v. Clover Network, LLC, stemmed from allegations that the company (or parties acting on its behalf) sent unsolicited text messages to individuals, including those whose numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry[1][2].
The lawsuit claimed that these messages were sent without proper consent, thus violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which restricts telemarketing calls and messages to numbers listed on the DNC Registry[2].
Settlement Details
Clover Network LLC agreed to a settlement of up to $15 million to resolve the class action lawsuit[2]. The settlement is intended to compensate class members who allegedly received the unlawful text messages. According to preliminary approval documents, millions of individuals may be affected by or eligible for participation in this settlement[3].
Citations
- [Bobo v. Clover Network, LLC – Official Settlement Website](https://clovertcpasettlement.com)[1]
- [CompliancePoint: Text Messaging Lessons from the Clover TCPA Settlement](https://www.compliancepoint.com/marketing-compliance/text-messaging-lessons-from-the-clover-tcpa-settlement/)[2]
- [Preliminary Approval Order (PDF)](https://clovertcpasettlement.com/Content/Documents/Preliminary%20Approval%20Order.pdf)[3]
35. SolarCity ($15 million)
SolarCity, a major solar energy provider, faced a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Plaintiffs accused the company of placing telemarketing calls to consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system, allegedly without the recipients’ prior express consent as required under the TCPA. The calls were part of SolarCity’s efforts to market its solar products and services to prospective customers[1][2].
The case in question, *Lucero v. SolarCity Corp.*, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Settlement details
A settlement was reached in which SolarCity agreed to pay $15 million into a fund to resolve all claims related to these alleged unauthorized marketing calls. The settlement received preliminary approval from the court, and checks of approximately $94.91 each were distributed to class members who had received such calls. The settlement was approved by Judge Richard Seeborg on February 1, 2018, and payments were sent out on June 15, 2018[1][3][4].
There are reports of different figures (e.g., $7.5 million), but the confirmed settlement amount is $15 million. This class action is notable as one of the larger TCPA settlements in the solar industry, underscoring the significant financial risks companies face when they allegedly violate telemarketing laws[1][2][5].
Citations
- [Bursor & Fisher: $15 Million Solar City Settlement](https://www.bursor.com/results/15-million-solar-city-settlement/) [1]
- [Top Class Actions: Plaintiffs Seek SolarCity TCPA Settlement of $15 Million](https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/plaintiffs-seek-solarcity-tcpa-settlement-15-million/) [2]
- [Bursor & Fisher: Payments Sent to SolarCity TCPA Class Members](https://www.bursor.com/payments-sent-to-solarcity-telephone-consumer-protection-act-class-members/) [3]
- [Law360: Call Recipients Say SolarCity Changed TCPA Suit Deal](https://www.law360.com/articles/937717/call-recipients-say-solarcity-changed-tcpa-suit-deal) [4]
- [Solar Power World: TCPA Compliance in Solar](https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2020/07/working-on-phone-leads-heres-how-solar-companies-can-stay-in-compliance-with-the-tcpa/) [5]
36. American Eagle Outfitters ($14.5 Million)
American Eagle Outfitters faced a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) after it sent more than 600,000 unsolicited text messages to cell phones without prior consent, or after recipients had opted out of future messages.
The alleged violations began in 2010 and involved American Eagle’s marketing campaigns, which included the use of a third-party telemarketing company (Experian Marketing Solutions).
Plaintiffs claimed these messages advertised the company’s promotions and were sent without legally required express consent from recipients[1][2][3].
Multiple lawsuits from various states, including New York, Florida, and Illinois, were consolidated into a single action in March 2015. The class action ultimately represented about 618,000 people who claimed to have received these unwanted messages[2][3].
Settlement Details
A mediator helped the parties reach a settlement agreement in June 2016, finalized in December 2016. Under the agreement, American Eagle Outfitters created a $14.5 million settlement fund.
This fund covered payments to eligible class members (those who received unsolicited texts), incentive awards to lead plaintiffs, administrative costs, court costs, and attorneys’ fees[1][2][3].
Class members could claim between $142 and $300 each, depending on the total number of valid claims submitted. The settlement did not require American Eagle to admit any wrongdoing. After compensation of class members, any leftover funds were set to be distributed to the National Consumer Law Center[2][3].
Citations
- [DNC.com – $14.5 Million Settlement by American Eagle Outfitters For TCPA Text Messaging Violation](https://www.dnc.com/blog/145-million-settlement-american-eagle-outfitters-tcpa-text-messaging-violation)[1]
- [Top Class Actions – American Eagle Outfitters TCPA Class Action Settlement](https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/american-eagle-outfitters-tcpa-class-action-settlement/)[2]
- [Data Privacy & Security Insider – American Eagle Settles TCPA Class Action for $14.5 Million](https://www.dataprivacyandsecurityinsider.com/2016/12/american-eagle-settles-tcpa-class-action-for-14-5-million/)[3]
- [ClassAction.org – American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. | The ClassAction.org Legal News Wire](https://www.classaction.org/news/category/american-eagle-outfitters-inc)[4]
