CLASS IS NOT IN SESSION: Court Affirms Denial of Class Certification In TCPA Lawsuit

Hi TCPAWorld!

As we wrap up the year and folks are enjoying time with their friends and loved ones, just as kids are happy to not be in school, Defendant just scored a huge victory with a Court affirming a denial of class certification in their lawsuit. In Brian J. Lyngas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., v. IQVIA, INC., 2025 WL 3565507 (E.D. PA Dec 12, 2025), Plaintiff filed a TCPA lawsuit against Defendant alleging that Defendant sent unsolicited fax advertisements without prior express invitation or permission to Plaintiff and other allegedly similarly situated. Plaintiff later went on to file for class certification and the court subsequently held a hearing.

Now, we all know that the requirements for certifying a class are numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy but what is not as always discussed is that an essential prerequisite to class certification is ascertainability. The Court noted that the ascertainability requirement is a “threshold issue” and serves several objectives, including “insisting on the easy identification of class members….” Id. (citing Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., 687 F. 3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012)). In this case, after reviewing documents and undergoing an analysis, the Court held that the Plaintiff’s methodology for ascertaining the class members was not administratively feasible or reliable and found Plaintiff’s expert witness to lack credibility and persuasion and thus denied the certification of the class. Id.

After the denial of class certification in this case, another unpublished case in the Third Circuit held in part, that, under the TCPA, “whether the individual in fact received the faxes is irrelevant, at least for purposes of ascertainability.” See Steven A. Conner, DPM, P.C. v. Fox Rehab Servs., P.C., No. 23-1550, 2025 WL 289230, at *1 (3d Cir. Jan 24, 2025). Subsequently, the Court allowed parties to file supplemental briefs regarding any applicability of the Connor case to the denial of class certification in this one, but after considering the briefs, the Court found no basis or reason to alter its decision. The Court noted that not only was the Connor cases an unpublished and non-precedential one (noting that non-precedential opinions are not regarded as precedents that bind the court because they do not circulate to the full court for filing), but held that even if the Court considered the case, the same ascertainability requirement was not met! The Court again noted that there must be “a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall within the class definition.” (citing Conner, 2025 WL 289230 at *12). This was not satisfied because the Court found that the Plaintiff’s expert’s testimony as to ascertainability to be spurious at best given that the testimony raised serious doubts about who the class members actually are. As a result, the Court affirmed the denial of class certification since Plaintiff’s proposed class was not “currently and readibly ascertainable.”

This case underscores not only the importance of the ascertainability component in determining class certification but also highlights how crucial it is to choose the right counsel. The amazing team at Troutman Amin, spearheaded by Eric, Puja and Brittany bring not only a wealth of knowledge and experience at the highest-level fighting class certification in TCPA lawsuits but the ability to effectively strategize and seize opportunities that Plaintiff’s present to attack their shortcomings. The wherewithal to know where the lack of reliability lies in expert testimony, call in to question Plaintiff’s purported numerous affected individuals and effectively communicate these pitfalls to a court comes only from a team of Troutman Amin’s caliber (and good luck finding one as Eric, Puja, Brittany and the rest of the team are the absolute best at what they do).

I will be sure to keep you updated on any news that arise from this case as soon as it happens. Happy New Year TCPAWorld!