STOP LITIGATORS!: New Site Hopes to Crowd Source Fraudulent Lawsuits Out of Existence–and I’m Giving Serious Thought to Creating a New Trade Organization

Editor’s Note: Just a reminder, I dont monetize TCPAWorld in any way. I dont get paid for mentions or content and I dont advertise or endorse products or services. My word carries way too much weight and I know that. But if I see something I think is a good idea, I talk about it to raise awareness and spark debate. I try to help everyone get to the right answer. That’s sort of my thing.

This has been an extremely interesting Leads Con so far.

So I’m socializing the creation of a new trade organization focused on BUYERS of leads–i.e. those with the greatest interest in seeing standards set to assure that fraud in the lead funnel (if there is any) is identified and stomped out and to establish certain best practices for the lead generation industry from the buyer’s perspective.

WAY more interest in this than I was expecting. Kind of overwhelming actually. I’m being pushed pretty hard to do it so… I think I might.

In the meantime, the other big threat to lead buyers–i.e. to direct-to-consumer sales folks–are abusive manufactured lawsuits. Particular TCPA lawsuits. You know, the folks who fill out a lead form and then say “it wasn’t me” just so they can shake you down in a fraudulent suit?

Sooooooo many of these lawsuits right now. In fact the fraudulent plaintiffs have become so aggressive that a coordinated counterattack is now inevitable.

I know of a couple of initiatives moving forward simultaneously, but the good folks at look to be taking the lead. They just launched— and incredibly BRILLIANT concept that will allow folks to crowd source information related to claims being brought by the bad guys.

So, for instance, if you want to know HOW the bad guys are getting their numbers into your funnels and WHICH URLs and lead suppliers are picking up these numbers (i.e. who might actually be working with/for the dark siders) one way you could do that is have EVERYONE facing a demand/lawsuit from one of the knuckleheads pool their knowledge by sharing information about the claims/numbers/sources.

This sort of enhanced intelligence will likely lead to the identification of the bad guy’s tactics and help everyone to steer clear of these abusive lawsuits, even while we collectively work to identify and stamp out any limited fraud that might exist on the industry side.

Wouldnt it be funny if it turns out that the guys selling bad leads in the lead gen space were actually working with the professional litigants setting up TCPA suits?


Anyway, I am COMPLETELY in favor of efforts to stamp out fraudulent lawsuits–I helped pioneer the argument that these guys lack standing to sue and also helped engineer the fraud-based countersuits that are now so popular–and I love this logo that came up with:

This thing is awesome. Sort of like the Czar’s visage looking right back at you right?

But stopping fraudulent lawsuits is only half the problem. The consumer experience also matters–and if standards aren’t set for the lead industry soon the regulators may determine that online leads are simply not enforceable at all. And that is a huge problem for consumers and industry participants alike.

Seems to me that lead buyers need to come together and set standards (best practices) on the number of times a lead can be sold, specific requirements on content size and website format, specific limitations on the content that can be used to bring consumers into a funnel and on non-disclosed multi-vertical leads, the required use of third-party authentication software, bot detection, etc.

I figured I’d then take those standards to the FCC for consideration and seek a safeharbor for any buyer that rely on such leads. That should limit the use of leads that don’t meet the standards, no? Plus it should destroy all of the “it wasn’t me” lawsuits the industry is faced with once and for all.

Yep. Czar. Saving the (TCPA) world. Again.

If you want a seat at this table give me a call.  If you think its a bad idea give me a call too. I welcome all sides, as you know.

In the meantime check out!



    1. I don’t get paid for any of my content. I just call it as I see it. Happy to share information about any product I think might be valuable to my readers.

  1. Well, don’t sweat it Eric, I did the homework for both of us!

    Michael, I did a troll submission to receive the: “Please, submit TCPA TROLL info to receive updated troll list and Top 10 TCPA Litigators 2022,” and what you sent back was a Top TCPA Litigator list from 2018 (!!??) and an ‘”updated troll list” consisting of 10 names/18 entries from 2018/2019.

    At least I furnished one troll you can use in your 2021/22 list, you’re welcome!

    Oh, Mr. O’Hare: I suggest you update your content/site because TCPA World is the place to be for all things TCPA and your site currently does not make one receptive to actually paying you for your services…so much for free publicity…

  2. So the reason these organizations, such as Litigator List, exist is not so that they can help companies avoid running afoul of the law, but instead to assist the ones already running afoul of the law in continuing to evade the law more effectively, by evading those that would take action? If that doesn’t fit the definition of a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization I don’t know what else does.

    Also, there is this moronic assumption throughout this article and similar ones that anyone on these lists furnished by these organizations is indeed a “bad guy” who is looking to manufacture a claim. No, organizations such as these list anyone who has ever sent a TCPA demand to a company or filed a complaint. How do I know, you ask? I have called a number back in order to identify who called me and heard the message, “you have been blocked by Blacklist Alliance.” I have never filed a TCPA suit, but I’ve settled quite a few, because there was NO DOUBT the company called me without any consent whatsoever. I had no reason to want their junk. The majority of people on these “lists” have not manufactured their claims. How do we know that? Because in almost every instance where a suit has actually been filed, the consent or “opt-in” provided by the lead generator has turned out not to be credible and that defense has not worked in vast the majority of cases. I am yet to see a case where a plaintiff had actually been found to have manufactured a claim and the case was dismissed because valid consent existed.

    Think about it… the calls you yourself would get every single day, which are probably fewer now that carriers filter most of these calls, that hawked things like car warranties, health insurance, debt reduction, etc. – did you EVER sign up for these products? No, no one ever does. That’s why there are hundreds of thousands of complaints on various websites online and filed with the FTC complaining about these calls every year. But, guess what will happen if you actually try to go after one of these callers? Try it. First, you would quickly find that you will get NOWHERE if you try to simply ask them questions to identify themselves. No, you will get hung up on. The only way to get more info to identify the caller, who is usually calling using a spoofed number, is to play along and buy the product. Once you identify them and make a demand or file suit, you will find yourself on one of these lists and you will also find the company swearing up and down that you “opted in” and in many cases be sent a manufactured opt-in that usually will show a completely random IP address or other info associated with your name and the info you’ve already provided them. I think it would really benefit you in particular, Eric, to try to do this yourself and find out for yourself, if only to help your clients better. Please don’t be willfully ignorant simply because you play for the defense team.

    1. There are bad guys out there manufacturing lawsuits. I think it is appropriate for folks to avoid calling folks who don’t want to be called. Seems like a win win. But I hear you. More can be done by industry. And I intend to see that more is done. Watch and see.

      1. Except they wouldn’t simply be providing a service “for folks to avoid calling folks who don’t want to be called.” It’s not quite that innocent is it? They would be helping folks evade the law, by evading only those who have potential to hold them accountable for breaking the law, thereby “using an enterprise to commit illegal acts.” They would be/are liable under civil RICO. Tread carefully.

      2. Also, as far as your logic of sharing for the purpose of “not calling folks that do not want to be called”, companies that pass on customer info in this fashion are doing so without the customer’s consent, and the sharing of such information is expressly unlawful under 47 CFR 64.1200(d)(3), which states in relevant part: “A person or entity making a call for telemarketing purposes must obtain a consumer’s prior express permission to share or forward the consumer’s request not to be called to a party other than the person or entity on whose behalf a telemarketing call is made or an affiliated entity.” Only saying all this because I do like and respect you a lot Eric. I don’t want you to get caught up in a web with these law breakers when the RICO suits start hitting…and they will.

Leave a Reply