BETTER THAN NOTHING: Willfulness Allegations Tossed Against Credit Acceptance Corp in TCPA Class Action Although Other Motions Denied

1 Comment

Sometimes even a small win for a TCPA defendant likely feels like a great victory.

Take the case of Carr v. Credit Acceptance Corp. 2026 WL 297212 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2026).

There CAC is being sued in a TCPA class action alleging the use of prerecorded calls to contact consumers without consent. According to the complaint the calls were made looking for a person named Cornelius– and that gives me real Fight Club vibes.

Regardless wrong number prerecorded call TCPA class actions remain amongst the toughest cases to defend so when a defendant can extract anything in a motion to dismiss in these cases that has to feel pretty good.

In Carr CAC brought a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the class– good moves in this context. But it mostly lost.

CAC argued plaintiff had not alleged enough facts to demonstrate a prerecorded voice was used but the court found the scripted nature of the call combined with the claims that the plaintiff could tell it was not a live voice were sufficient to state a claim.

The motion to strike was denied because the class definition was not a failsafe and because consent could not be established at the pleadings stage across the class. No beef from me on these rulings– but, again, I understand where CAC was coming from.

But the court did throw out the willfulness allegations because nothing about the allegations demonstrated CAC was intentionally calling wrong numbers– and that makes sense in this context.

And its actually a pretty big win– it cuts the potential exposure in the case down to just 1/3 of what it would have otherwise been.

Then again it isn’t all good news because willfulness tends to be an individualized showing that defeats–rather than helps–class certification. Still, on balance I would take the W here.

If you’re interested in these sorts of DEEP dive TCPA litigation tactics discussions you will LOVE the Baroness’ session at LCOC IV in May. She is going to dive into some of Troutman Amin, LLP’s best TCPA moves to help empower and inform! Be there!

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. Looks like Greenwald and Paronich missed some important arguments. Among them, that CAC should have known that numbers can be reassigned, as that’s common knowledge, and the fact that they didn’t use the RND, which the FCC has established for just this purpose. Failing to use it, knowing full well that there have been multiple wrong number class actions is quite easily evidence of at least a knowing failure, and quite possibly willful at this point, IMO, as CAC is a repeat TCPA defendant.

    Reply

Leave a Reply