$30,000,000.00 MISTAKE?: Liberty Mutual Loses Massive Certification Order in TCPA Case After Buying Leads from All Web Leads– And It Never Should Have Happened

Just a few months back Troutman Amin, LLP successfully defeated a TCPA class certification effort where a Plaintiff claimed he had not visited the website at issue.

The fact the Plaintiff (allegedly) did not visit the website deprived him of standing to challenge the alleged deficiencies in the website the class rested its claims on.

Just like that certification was denied. See Clark v. Spark Energy (N.D. Cal 2025)

Well Liberty Mutual just faced this exact scenario– lead gen case with a guy who claimed he didn’t fill out the form trying to represent a class of people who did– but they didn’t hire Troutman Amin, LLP as their counsel. And they didn’t get a win. Instead the Court just certified a massive TCPA class action against Liberty Mutual for up to $30,000,000.00– and it never should have happened.

The background in Ward v. Liberty Mutual, 2026 WL 1707142 (D. Mass. June 12, 2026) is one everyone in the lead generation community needs to keep in mind. Here are the key facts from the perspective of the court leading up to the lawsuit:

1. Liberty Mutual is a nationwide insurance company that conducts telemarketing campaigns using “leads”—contact information
   for potential customers—obtained from third-party aggregators, who themselves collect leads from different websites.
2. Liberty Mutual engages a third-party platform, Jornaya, to document its compliance with TCPA requirements by capturing video playback evidence of the consent provided by each consumer that Liberty contacts.
3. Liberty Mutual purchased the leads at issue in this case from a “lead aggregator,” All Web Leads, Inc.
4. AWLI sourced these leads from Next Level Media, LLC.
5. Ward denies that he submitted the form on the Lead Website and denies having given express written consent or any consent for solicitation calls and texts from Liberty Mutual

What this case describes is what happens 10,000 times a day. D2C brand buys leads from an aggregator, who buys leads from a sub.

As mentioned, Ward claims he never filled out the form– i.e. he contends Next Level Media sold a fake lead.

Did it?

Maybe. Don’t know.

But what we do know is now ever single lead sold by Next Level Media is at issue in this case.

Specifically the Plaintiff claims that Next Level Media’s website did not have Liberty Mutual listed as a potential “seller” who was authorized to contact class members. This means every single person who received a prerecorded call from Liberty Mutual based upon a lead from Next Level Media– allegedly 20,000 people– might have a valid TCPA claim.

So Liberty Mutual is looking at approximately $30,000,000.00 in TCPA exposure

As I previewed, Plaintiff lacks standing to contest the enforceability of the website because he never visited the website. For some reason, however, Liberty Mutual’s counsel apparently did not raise this issue. Instead it argued:

(1) the issue of Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement necessitates an individualized assessment of whether each class member was contacted without consent; and (2) Ward himself has not demonstrated injury-in-fact because his actions illustrate that he initiated the contact with Liberty Mutual.

These are not bad arguments. They’re just not the right argument.

In the end the court found the question of whether the lead generation website Next Level Media was using was sufficient to afford Liberty Mutual consent was a classwide issue.

Should be noted this is the latest in a series of similar certification rulings. Leads provided by Lending Tree have also resulted in recent TCPA certification orders– so this is not an All Web Leads problem. This is an industry-wide issue. Where a court detects problems in a lead-suppliers form they WILL certify a class across the entire lead source (provided the plaintiff admits he visited the website.)

Importantly, however, even the Ward court noted that “fake lead” cases cannot be certified in the absence of a classwide flaw with the form itself:

 The Court is skeptical that such a theory of the case could be resolved on a class-wide basis. If the argument is that all leads were fabricated, that might be suspectable to class wide resolution. But if the argument is that some portion of the leads were fabricated, that would seem to be an inherently individualized inquiry.

That’s an important one for TCPA litigators to keep in mind. Fake lead cases might look fun and sexy but they’re actually next-to-impossible to certify.

So Liberty Mutual will have to prove the form at issue was viable– let’s hope Next Level Media is participating in the case and willing to provide admissible evidence of Liberty Mutual’s name being on the form at the time.

One last note, D. Mass. is becoming a nightmare jurisdiction for TCPA defendants to litigate in. Following up on the Mantha v. QuoteWizard disaster–speaking of Lending Tree– courts have proven eager to certify lead generation class actions in the jurisdiction. And, of course, that’s the place where the Wolf makes his home.

Go figure.

If you’re buying leads at scale and need the best compliance and vendor intake guidance and the best TCPA defense in the market reach out to Troutman Amin, LLP. We aren’t the cheapest– but you get what you pay for, as some folks out there keep finding out the hard way.

Chat soon.