OUT STANDING: Yes, Doane has Standing to Bring TCPA Cases. Probably. But Also Maybe Not

3 Comments

Repeat TCPA litigators.

Trolls.

They love to receive marketing calls because it means they get to sue people, right?

Maybe.

So does that mean they can’t sue.

No. Well, sort of.

I have talked about my great win in Stoops v. Wells Fargo multiple times on this blog and won’t dive into it again. Bottom line– if a litigator sets up their case then they lack standing to sue (you’re welcome.)

But if a litigator just rejoices when they get an unsolicited call and springs forth with a lawsuit every time it happens well… they probably do have standing to sue.

Take the ever-fascinating Robert Doane.

The Martha’s vineyard dwelling Doane apparently has all the money in the world, but it doesn’t stop him from suing pesky marketers that cross his phone.

But given that he has pursued so many cases and claims does he really have standing to keep suing?

Yes. Probably.

In Doane v. Pyhton, 2025 WL 3485569 (D. Mass. Dec. 4, 2025) for instance the court rejected a motion to dismiss his claim for lac of standing:

[Defendant]that Doane lacks standing because he allegedly has multiple cellphones and has filed other TCPA lawsuits. But Levine has provided no evidentiary support for her speculation that Doane has multiple cellphones or that he manufactured the unsolicited phone calls from Python. See Martinez-Rivera v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 812 F.3d 69, 74 (1st Cir. 2016) (permitting consideration of evidence on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss). And her assertion that Doane has previously filed other TCPA actions does not impact his standing to advance the claims in this case, where the TCPA provides a private right of action whenever a person “has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). Doane’s complaint adequately establishes his standing to pursue his claims.

Get it?

The mere fact Doane has sued a bunch is not sufficient to cut off his ability to sue again. But if it turns out that he did set up the lawsuit THEN he would lack standing and his case would be thrown out– but that needs to be proven on evidence. 

That tracks.

In Stoops for instance we deposed the Plaintiff, got her to admit she bought the phones to set up a TCPA suit and then moved for judgment. That’s what Python will have to do here if it hopes to win!

If you hope to win be sure to hire the firm that knows how to get it done–Troutman Amin, LLP! Our phones are ringing OFF THE HOOK with new clients right now because our rate rise January 1!!! Don’t get left behind.

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.

3 Comments

  1. Python Leads has shown a repeated disregard for the TCPA. For pete’s sake! The company is named after a snake that has a track record of illegal calling practices. At a certain point, the branding stops being ironic and starts being accurate. At some point, regulators need to treat repeat offenders like this exactly as what they are: habitual violators.

    Reply

  2. Just curious why Doane is painted in the “Repeat TCPA litigators” and “Trolls” negative light, but there are no mentions of the numerous instances where Python has been named as a defendant in a TCPA case, or named by the defendant as the party who made the call(s)? That’s not to mention the other times that its owner (Jaqueline Levin), its compliance officer / inside counsel (David Levin, husband to J. Levin), and the several other companies that the Levin’s own or have previously owned have been named as defendants in TCPA cases, or named by defendants in TCPA cases as the party who made the call(s) to the victims. This very blog has several articles about them, and also a few articles featuring companies that used the Levin’s as their lead generator.

    Having experience myself with the Levins, I can tell you that they are exactly what REACH was created to stop. They’ll lie to their clients about who they are, what kind of protections they offer, and the legitimacy of their leads (see Final Expense Direct v. Python Leads where a point of contention is the million dollar insurance policy they promised they had, but turns out do not). They’ll also lie to anyone they call by using spoofed numbers, fake company names, fake individual names, then lie to you about having called in the first place (see the emails from their victims shown in Final Expense Direct v. Python Leads). You can see these same experiences play out in virtually every case where Python Leads is brought up (see Estrada v. Aragon Advertising, LLC, Schwartz v. The Hall Insurance Group Inc., and many more).

    Reply

  3. A plaintiff doesn’t need to “set up” anyone. There are so many violators out there, there’s plenty of meat on the bone from true TCPA violators.

    Just had an SMS exchange today…

    Me: Do not contact me anymore. Please and thank you.

    Them: I’m gonna need an explanation for that to happen.

    And I’ve already got pending litigation against them for texts and calls they made after an opt out in May. The arrogance and assumed impunity of these idiots is simply staggering.

    Reply

Leave a Reply