ONE REQUEST WILL DO: Court Finds Consumer’s DNC Request Applies to Farmers Insurance– Not Just to Telemarketer Calling On Its Behalf

1 Comment

When a marketer calls on behalf of a brand and is asked not to call, the marketer must advise the brand of the request and the brand must make sure no further calls from the brand or any other marketer working on its behalf.

This is already pretty well tread law–it applies equally well in the agency context BTW– but it is always nice to have a refresher.

In Moore v. Farmers Group, Inc., 2025 WL 2962623 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2025) a caller pitching Farmers products was asked to stop calling. Calls continued–apparently from different Farmers-related entities–and the Plaintiff sued.

Farmers moved to dismiss arguing the revocation was only valid as to the entity that was actually asked to stop calling. The Court disagreed:

Do-not-call requests also apply to affiliates of the entity on whose behalf the call was made if a “consumer reasonably would expect them to be included given the identification of the caller and … the product being advertised.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) (5). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “intentionally obscure the differentiation between themselves and their intercompany relationships to the public” and operate generally as a “Farmers” group of insurance companies. Doc. 95 ¶¶ 105–14. Viewing these allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court concludes a reasonable consumer would expect all Defendants to be included in a do-not-call-request made to a telemarketer advertising Farmers products. That is, to the extent Defendants contend Hossfeld’s July 21, 2020 do-not-call request was inadequately specific as to which Defendants were meant to be covered, the Court rejects the argument.

Wow.

That’s a pretty big and damaging ruling for Farmers — and at the pleadings stage.

But again, not that surprising. Courts commonly find a revocation must be conveyed to the mothership and then disseminated across marketing channels– this is what got Dish Network into all that trouble a few years back.

Of course the FCC is considering getting rid of the internal DNC rules altogether– that would be nuts. But make sure you are following along:

NO MORE INTERNAL DNC?: FCC Considering Rule Change to Allow Businesses To Keep Marketing to Consumers After They Opt Out

Anyhoo make sure YOU stay out of trouble. Retain Troutman Amin, LLP to defend you in TCPA class suits and review your process for TCPA compliance! Rates rise soon so retain now.

THE FIRST $6K AN HOUR ATTORNEY?: Troutman Amin, LLP Rates Set to Rise January 1, 2026– Get In Now!

Chat soon.

 

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.

1 Comment

  1. Interesting scenario because insurance agents typically are independent entities operating under the umbrella of the larger brand. The logistics of managing opt-out would be non-trivial and could corrupt the competitive arena for the individual entities. For example, it’s easy to contrive an example where an agent might report a false opt-out for a prospect (or an entire group of prospects) in order to protect them from other agents.

    Reply

Leave a Reply