Tag Archives: Settlements

by

Nine Days of AI Calls, $1.1 Million: What This Month’s Robocall Settlements Tell Operators

Four TCPA settlements in the news over the past week share one feature: every one of them involves artificial or prerecorded voice calls. One of them, involving an AI voice vendor, covered just 900 people and still settled for $1.1 million. If your team uses voice bots, voicemail drops or automated reminders, this is the batch to study.

The AI test run that became a class action

TCPAWorld reported on November 9, 2026 that the parties in Finley v. Altrua have settled for $1.1 million. The class, as described in the post, covers people that Crown Administrators sent messages to using AiRudder on behalf of Altrua during a nine-day period. TCPAWorld describes it as a class of just 900 AI call recipients and characterizes the campaign as essentially a test run by a vendor.

Do the math: that is more than $1,200 of settlement value per class member, for a nine-day pilot. The TCPA treats artificial-voice calls the same way it treats prerecorded ones, and a short test is still a campaign in the eyes of the statute.

The prerecorded settlements

  • Connect America, up to $4 million. According to a November 3 article in the National Law Review, the class covers people who did not give ConnectAmerica.com, LLC their number but received at least one prerecorded message on a cell phone from April 1, 2021 through preliminary approval. The article puts the class at 14,534 members, payments at up to $275 each, and attorneys’ fees at up to $1.3 million.
  • Bond v. Folsom Insurance Agency, $850,000. In the Northern District of Texas (No. 3:24-cv-02551-BN), the fund covers 41,719 telephone numbers that received artificial or prerecorded voice calls and voicemails between February 29, 2020 and September 15, 2026. Preliminary approval came September 15, the claim deadline is November 16, and the final approval hearing is December 29. Estimated payments are about $125 to $200. The defendants deny wrongdoing.
  • Seals v. Concora Credit, $9.375 million. In the District of Oregon (No. 3:25-cv-00728-AN), this wrong-number settlement covers non-accountholders who received prerecorded or artificial voice calls on their cell phones between May 2, 2021 and May 31, 2026. It includes an $8.375 million cash fund and at least $1 million in compliance spending over three years. The final fairness hearing is set for November 24. Concora denies the allegations.

The operator checklist

  • Treat AI voice as prerecorded voice. If a bot speaks, you need the consent level the TCPA requires for artificial-voice calls before the first dial, including during pilots.
  • Own your vendor’s tests. Altrua’s exposure came from messages sent on its behalf. Any vendor proof of concept should go through the same consent and suppression gates as a production campaign.
  • Fix wrong numbers. Concora’s class is people who were not customers at all. Reassigned-number checks and fast handling of “wrong number” responses are the defense.
  • Voicemail drops count. The Folsom class includes voicemails. Leaving a prerecorded message is not a way around the rules.
  • Budget for compliance, not just settlements. Concora’s deal includes a $1 million compliance commitment. Spending it before a lawsuit is cheaper.

Consent is the first gate; knowing who is likely to sue is the second. TCPALitigatorList.com lets operators check dial lists against known TCPA litigators and serial plaintiffs before calls go out, so a pilot or a voicemail campaign does not land on the phone of someone who files these cases for a living.

Bottom line

The dollar amounts range from $850,000 to more than $9 million, but the theme does not change: automated voice without clean consent is still the most expensive mistake in outbound. AI makes it faster to make.

Sources

by

Two Texting Settlements, Two Different Mistakes: What Teleflora and Coast Dental Should Teach Every SMS Program

October brought two TCPA texting settlements worth studying side by side. One company allegedly texted people on the National Do Not Call Registry who never gave it their number. The other allegedly kept texting people after they replied STOP. Different failures, same result: a class action and a settlement fund in the millions.

Teleflora: $6 million over promotional texts to DNC numbers

In Carter v. Teleflora LLC, Case No. 2026-012979-CA-01, in the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida, Teleflora agreed to pay $6 million to settle claims that it sent telemarketing texts without consent and without checking the National Do Not Call Registry. The plaintiff says she received multiple texts even though she never gave Teleflora her number. Teleflora denies wrongdoing.

The class covers people who never gave Teleflora their phone number, received more than one promotional text within a 12-month period starting May 9, 2021, and whose number had been on the National DNC Registry for at least 30 days. The estimated payment is about $251 per class member. The settlement received preliminary approval on August 26, 2026; claims, opt-outs and objections are due November 17, and the final approval hearing is set for November 25.

Coast Dental: up to $3.84 million over texts after STOP

In Chaviano v. Coast Dental Services, LLC, filed in Florida on July 6, 2026, Coast Dental agreed to pay up to $3,840,664. The suit alleged that the company sent appointment-related marketing texts and calls after consumers asked it to stop, in violation of the TCPA and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The class, roughly 24,308 people, covers individuals who received more than one appointment reminder or scheduling text within a 12-month period after replying “stop” or a similar opt-out. Class members can choose a pro rata cash payment of up to $59 or a voucher of up to $99 toward an electronic toothbrush. Preliminary approval came August 31, the final approval hearing is December 9, and claims are due December 24, 2026.

The operator’s read

These are not exotic legal theories. They are basic process failures, and they are the kind that scale. One missing suppression step touches every message in a campaign, which is exactly what makes a case certifiable as a class.

Here is what to check on your own program this week:

  • DNC scrubbing for SMS. If you send promotional texts to numbers you did not collect directly with consent, run them against the National DNC Registry first. Teleflora’s class is defined by registry status.
  • STOP handling end to end. Test it. Reply STOP to your own short code and confirm every platform that can send to that number stops, including reminder and scheduling flows that marketing may not think of as marketing.
  • Know where every number came from. “Never gave us their number” is a hard fact pattern to defend.
  • Watch your Florida exposure. Both cases were filed in Florida, and Coast Dental’s included a state-law claim on top of the TCPA.

Add a litigator screen

Consent and suppression are the foundation. A litigator screen is the next layer. TCPALitigatorList.com lets outbound and SMS teams check numbers against known TCPA litigators before a send, pulling the contacts most likely to file out of a campaign before they ever receive a message. It works alongside DNC scrubbing and opt-out handling, not in place of them.

Don’t forget the paper trail

If one of these claims ever lands on your desk, the first questions will be simple: where did this number come from, what did the person agree to, and when did they opt out? Make sure your team can answer all three from records, not memory. Pull a random sample of numbers each month and try it. If you cannot reconstruct the history in a few minutes, a plaintiff’s lawyer will happily do it for you.

Bottom line

A texting program does not need a dramatic mistake to end up in a settlement. It needs one gap repeated across every message. Close the gaps before the volume does the damage.

Sources