MASSIVE NEW RISK FOR MARKETERS: Dobronski Nukes SelectQuote and the Whole TCPAWorld Has to Deal With the Fallout

3 Comments

So there’s this guy named Mark Dobronski.

Frequent commenter on TCPAWorld.

Aggressive repeat litigator who is not, at all, afraid to go it alone in TCPA cases and bring suits on his own behalf. He also raises novel and interesting issues.

Here’s one.

47 CFR 64.1601 provides that anyone engaging in telemarketing must transmit either  a CPN or ANI, and the name of the telemarketer. 

Dobronski alleged SelectQuote didn’t comply with this rule. So he sued.

But SelectQuote moved for summary judgment and won originally with the court determining the CFR provision was promulgated under section 227(e)–the Truth in Caller ID Act–that does not afford a private right of action.

Great, fine. Except one little problem– 64.1601 was promulgated before 227(e) was added to the TCPA.

Oops.

So this creates a mystery: Which section of the TCPA was the CFR section promulgated under?

SelectQuote’s attorneys argued it was pursuant to Section 227(d)–which proscribes technical requirements for prerecorded calls– but Dobronski countered the provisions of 64.1601 apply to all marketing calls, not just prerecorded calls.

As a result the Court defaulted to 227(c) as the statutory section that gave the FCC authority to promulgate the rule. This is so although the court conceded section 227(c) was not a perfect fit either.

So Dobronski just got a court to hold that the provisions of 64.1601 ARE enforceable pursuant to a private right of action.

Eesh.

That means telemarketers–looking at you lead generators–need to make sure either:

  1. The name of the telemarketer is displayed on your caller ID; or 
  2. The name of the seller on behalf of which the telemarketing call is placed and the seller’s customer service telephone number.

Hope ya’ll are following along. Because this is a HUGE deal.

Btw– the CORRECT answer here is that the FCC EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY in creating 64.1601 as Congress had not yet given it the ability to regulate caller ID until 227(e) was passed. Ta da.

But  SelectQuote’s lawyers (apparently) did not raise that argument. So here we are.

And, what a surprise– the lawyers who just got beat by a guy WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY are from, you guessed it!, #BIGLAW!!!

Hire big law. Expect big losses folks.

Luckily you can get out of the biglaw trap for less money but only for another 6 days!

MARCH MATCH MADNESS: This Month Only Troutman Amin, LLP Will Match the Rates For Most Any #BigLaw Firm When You Transfer a TCPA Class Action Defense!

Chat soon.

Case is: Dobronski v. SelectQuote 2025 WL 900439 (E.D. Mich March 25, 2025)

 

Discover more from TCPAWorld

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories:

Published by Eric "Czar" Troutman

The Czar of TCPAWorld Eric Troutman is one of the country’s prominent class action defense lawyers and is nationally recognized in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation and compliance. He has served as lead defense counsel in more than 70 national TCPA class actions and has litigated nearly a thousand individual TCPA cases in his role as national strategic litigation counsel for major banks and finance companies. He also helps industry participants build TCPA-compliant processes, policies, and systems. Eric has built a national litigation practice based upon deep experience, rigorous analysis and extraordinary responsiveness. Eric and his team feel equally at home litigating multibillion dollar telecommunications class actions in federal court as they do developing and executing national litigation strategies for institutions facing an onslaught of individual TCPA matters. They thrive in each of these roles – delivering consistently excellent results – while never losing sight of the client experience. While many firms now tout TCPA expertise, Eric has been there from the beginning. He built one of the country’s first TCPA-only defense teams and began serving as national TCPA counsel for his clients nearly a decade ago. This perspective allows him to swiftly develop the right litigation strategies for dealing with recurring problems, without wasting time on tactics that are bound to fail. Eric’s rich historical perspective and encyclopedic knowledge of the TCPA landscape also make him an invaluable resource to institutional compliance teams struggling to comply with the shifting regulatory landscape. No task is too small – or too big. Indeed, Eric and his team have helped build TCPA-compliant systems and processes for some of the largest and most complex corporate entities in the country. He commonly works with in-house compliance counsel to build and implement enterprise and business-line specific TCPA solutions, performs TCPA audits and drafts and reviews proposed TCPA policies and procedures. He and his team also have the technical expertise necessary to assist call centers seeking to develop TCPA-resistant call path architecture or to modify existing telephony and software integration to better insulate from potential TCPA exposure. Eric has built a reputation for thought leadership. An avid blogger and speaker, he has been at the forefront of the industry’s effort to push for clarity and a return to sanity for the TCPA for years. He was selected to advocate for the financial services industry on important TCPA issues before the Federal Communications Commission and co-authored the nation’s only comprehensive practice guide on TCPA defense. In his spare time, Eric leads defense teams representing banks and other financial services companies in consumer finance litigation matters. He has experience representing clients in UCC, TILA, RESPA FCRA, CCRA, CLRA, FDCPA, RFDCPA and FCCPA claims, as well as in fraud and bank operations issues.

3 Comments

  1. More proof that the people writing these regulations haven’t got a clue how the industry they regulate works. This will make calling any cell phone a game of Russian Roulette, because the only carriers who can transmit this data are AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and as of just a few weeks ago, Consumer Cellular. Good luck calling anyone with Mint, Cricket, Spectrum, etc. because they do not have the ability to brand their calls.

    Reply

    1. pbennett3fc2166c76, you have the situation backwards. Like any other regulation, the FCC went through an extensive public comment process before adopting the rule. In fact, as to the Caller ID requirement for telemarketers, the FCC went through at least two rulemaking processes before so doing. So, contrary to your comment, the FCC was well informed before adopting the rule. The requirement of 47 CFR 64.1601(e) is that telemarketers must transmit Caller ID name and number information; the telephone number so provided must allow a consumer to make a do not call request during business hours. If a consumer does not have the capability to receive Caller ID information, such as you suggest, that would not be a violation.

      Reply

    2. pbennett3fc2166c76 A couple of laymens Qs:

      1- Just how many legit marketing operations are running on “Mint, Cricket, Spectrum, etc.” as they are all MVNO’s?

      2- In this wonderful world of technological wizardry, how is it that Consumer Cellular can offer “the ability to brand their calls” (also an MVNO) which runs on the AT&T network; and none of the others you mentioned can?

      MVNO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operator

      Reply

Leave a Reply