LendingTree’s QuoteWizard recently paid $19MM to settle a TCPA class action arising out of unwanted text messages. But if the allegations of a new class action lawsuit are to be believed they still haven’t gotten the message.
A consumer named MAI TODOROV recently filed a TCPA class action in North Carolina alleging Lending Tree “bomard[ed]” her phone with unwanted messages– even after she asks for the messages to stop.
Per the allegations Lending Tree “engages in aggressive text message campaigns to consumers with no regard for consumers’ rights under the TCPA, even after customers opt out from Defendant’s text messages.”
Eesh.
The specific allegations show the text messages related to auto insurance quotes for a 2013 GMC Terrain– so new vertical but same old TCPS problems for Lending Tree.
The consumer responded “unsubscribe” but Tree allegedly just kept hammering her.
Notably the messages allegedly came from a person named “Lisa” but the Complaint suggests that’s a fake name– will be interesting to see if that’s true.
The messages allegedly came from telephone number (773) 232-4999 so if you’re getting messages from that number you may end up part of this suit.
There are three classes pleaded here and they’re a mouthful:
Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who
from four years prior to the filing of this action (1) were sent a
telephone solicitations by or on behalf of Defendant; (2) more
than one time within any 12-month period; (3) where the
person’s telephone number had been listed on the National Do
Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (4) for the purpose of
promoting Defendant’s products and services; and (5) for whom
Defendant claims (a) it did not obtain prior express written
consent, or (b) it obtained prior express written consent in the
same manner as Defendant claims it supposedly obtained prior
express written consent to call the Plaintiff.
National Internal Do Not Call Class: All persons within the
United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this
Complaint, (1) received at least two telephone solicitations
within any 12-month period; (2) from Defendant or on
Defendant’s behalf; (3) for the purpose of promoting
Defendant’s products and services; (4) to the person’s personal
telephone number; (5) while Defendant did not institute
procedures that met the minimum standards required by 47
C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(1)-(6).
Caller ID Class: All persons within the United States to whom,
within the four years prior to the filing of this action through the
date of class certification, Defendant (or a third party acting on
behalf of Defendant) placed two or more telephone solicitations
in a 12-month period without the transmission of caller
identification information that included either CPN or ANI and
Defendant or the telemarketer’s name.
The first two may end up fizzling out since text messages may not be calls under the TCPA’s DNC rules but the caller ID class has become very interesting lately.
Plaintiff’s lawyers on this one are Shamis & Gentile, P.A and they’re pretty good– so will keep a very close eye on this case.
BTW– those of you in New York for #ASE today be sure to catch Brittany’s MAIN STAGE session in a couple of hours– and swing by the Troutman Amin, LLP MEET MARKET BOOTH@!!!!!
Free copies of the 2026 Troutman Amin, LLP TCPA Annual Review, presented by Contact Center Compliance will be available! Probably some swag too. 😉
Chat soon!