Lead buyers–again– need to listen up. When you buy a lead you need to be thinking about more than just consent– whether the lead seller complied with Caller ID rules and state registration rules is just as important to consider.
Take Starling v. Homeover General, 2026 WL 1649101 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2026).
There Homeover General Contractors is stuck in a TCPA suit brought by repeat litigator Kimberly Starling after buying a lead from Storm Leads– and the remaining claims have nothing to do with unconsented phone calls.
The calls at issue here were allegedly screener calls placed by Storm Leads to qualify consumers and set appointments for Homeover. Homeover would then follow up and try to close the sale.
In Starling’s case she was contacted for a roof inspection and pretended to be interested resulting in several back and forth calls.
The Court viewed Homeover as responsible for the calls made by Storm Leads since, according to the complaint, those calls were made in an effort to sell Homeover’s services.
Importantly, the court actually tossed Starling’s DNC claim because she invited contact– agreeing to an appointment in her first call and requesting callbacks in future calls. So she had an EBR with Homeover and could not sue for the calls made to her under the DNC. So phone calls are really the issue.
Interestingly, however, the Court found Starling could sue for CallerID violations because the callers did not display valid CNAM information. Notably Caller ID info must be passed even for consented calls or calls with an EBR!
The Court also found HomeOver could be liable under the Texas registration rules– again the fact the calls were made with an EBR does not excuse registration!
So there you go folks. Lead buyers need to be very cautious here.
Consider joining R.E.A.C.H. to receive best-in-industry standards and information/education/networking to keep your business growing safely!
Chat soon.
Discover more from TCPAWorld
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.