WINRED WINS!: Court Finds WinRed Not Responsible for Illegal Texts Sent By Political Campaigns That Were “Powered by WinRed.”

2 Comments

Political contribution machine WinRed escaped potential TCPA trouble in Michigan his week with a court determining it is not responsible for illegal messages sent by political campaigns– even those seemingly “Powered By WinRed.”

In Dobronski v. WinRed, Inc. 2026 WL 2168723 (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2026) repeat-litigator Dobronski argued he had received over 80 illegal texts from political campaigns from the WinRed platform.

WinRed moved for sumamary judgment arguing the real number was only something like 30 texts but also that it was not responsible for the texts at issue.

According to WinRed it is not a tet message platform at all– it is merely a backend payment processor: “[A]s Defendants noted, there is no evidence that WinRed offers a calling platform service; it only provides a payment platform.” That being the case the Court refused to analyze the SMS at issue under the Lucas test–which looks at the platform’s involvement in the initiation of the messages.

Instead the Court focused on traditional theories of vicarious liability. But since none of the texts were sent “on behalf of” WinRed and were merely “powered by” WinRed–whatever that means– there was no basis to hold WinRed liable for the texts.

Interestingly, Dobronski apparently deposed WinRed CEO Ryan Lyk–I wonder what that was like– and tried to use some of his testimony to suggest WinRed knew its users were sending illegal political texts but the Court found the portion of Lyk’s testimony Dobronski submitted didn’t amount to a hill of beans.

At bottom there as nothing in the record to link WinRed to the illegal conduct at issue so the Court granted WinRed’s summary judgment motion.

And since I know you’re all curious, yes the Judge at issue was appointed by a Republican president– but it was W. not Trump. So… make of that what you will.

Never a dull moment in TCPAWorld.

Have you caught Deserve to Win Ep. 43 with our new format yet? This thing is fantastic. Give it a watch!

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.

2 Comments

  2. @Randall Bourgeois No they’re NEVER gonna stop, ever (esp in the 7th)

    So even the Great Dobronski failed…

    A cursory search of records will show pretty much all if not every TCPA case ever brought against them (and ActBlue – the Dem version) has failed too. In many/most of the cases the plaintiff (usually pro se) included the actual PAC that solicited the funds. That’s the key! And WinRed/ActBlue would be dismissed almost immediately BUT they’d settle with the PAC almost every time – so there exists a tried & true road map… If ANYONE can cite a case they settled w/$$ please post as I couldn’t find one

    While simple common sense tells one that even as a ‘mere payment processor’ they must know what platform is using their services – they just claim a P2P platform – I mean come on. One would think that info could be ‘discovered’, but hey what do I know?!?!

    UPDATE: OK so I happened to pick 1 doc to peruse and while the CEO of WinRed spews his BS (I mean makes his Declaration’) about we don’t text, we only build the websites and process payments, blah, blah, blah; it seems this wasn’t picked up on…p.8 #21:

    “By clicking ’Donate’ I accept WinRed’s terms of use and privacy policy.” The underlined terms conveniently linked to those policies. By agreeing to those terms, Mr. Dobronski agreed to receive text messages from WRTS, the PAC, and others”

    How and why would he need to agree to that if WRTS and the PAC (the PAC is this case is WinRed) didn’t/don’t send texts?!?!?!? From the words of the CEO no less! Did I miss something – or did Mark?!? Maybe Mr Dobronski will share his thoughts on that particular aspect…

    https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.379977/gov.uscourts.mied.379977.14.2.pdf

    Reply

Leave a Reply