Hi TCPAWorld!
In Dobronski v. Credit Swag Ventures, Inc., No. 25-11777, 2026 WL 2804605 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2026), the Court granted in part and denied in part Credit & Debt’s motion to dismiss and GRANTS Orozco’s motion to dismiss. What survives is Count I, the prerecorded voice claim, along with its proposed Robocall Class. The rest does not survive: the National DNC Registry claim, the caller ID claim, the two class definitions attached to them, the request for treble damages, the request for injunctive relief, and the claim against the individual defendant/agent Denise Orozco.
Credit & Debt sells credit and debt relief services and loan products. Plaintiff’s residential number has been on the National DNC Registry since June 2003. On April 3, 2025, he received at least five calls. One came from “Jessica” of the “Debt Relief Group.” Jessica was a robot. Plaintiff answered, Jessica answered back, paused for roughly five seconds, and started reading a script. He responded with deliberate vulgarity to test her, but she carried on asking whether he owed any debt. When he said “yes”, the call was transferred to “Jacob,” who was obviously human. He collected his debt history and demographic information and transferred him to Denise Orozco. Orozco identified herself as a agent of Credit & Debt and already had all the information about the Plaintiff. He gave her fake information, including a social security number that belonged to a deceased person. When he started pressing her on the legality of the prerecorded call, the line dropped and music started playing. Orozco then emailed him from a Credit & Debt address, called him back from a spoofed number, and a supervisor later called, also spoofed, admitting to using a prerecorded voice.
On direct liability the defense had a real argument but lost it. Credit & Debt pointed out that the voice and the first live agent both said “Debt Relief Group,” not “Credit & Debt,” and that the TCPA reaches only those who “initiate” a call, meaning those who take the steps necessary to physically place it. The Court drew all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor and found that it is plausible that Credit & Debt initiated the call. Because Orozco joined the call holding the information given to Jessica and Jacob, and because she followed up by email from a company address, it was plausible that all three were from the same company.
Then the ruling turns. Section 227(c) requires more than one “telephone solicitation.” “Telephone solicitation” is defined as “the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services.” Reading the actual content pleaded, the Court found that Dobronski’s allegations were insufficient to establish solicitation. Jessica said she had his information for debt settlement and asked about his debt. Jacob asked about his debt and demographics. Orozco asked the same questions again. Nobody tried to sell him anything.
Private Right of Action claim under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(e) was dismissed because the definition of “telemarketing” like “telephone solicitation” was not satisfied. Following the dismissal of Count III the Court dismissed the Telemarketing Caller ID class as an improper failsafe class because the underlying claim of Privat Right of Action was already dismissed.
Treble damages came next. The Eastern District of Michigan requires actual knowledge that the plaintiff did not consent, not “mere constructive knowledge, and not a mere violation of the statute.” Plaintiff never pleaded that he told Defendants he had not consented. Artificial or prerecorded voice robocall and spoofed caller IDs are violations, but they are insufficient because they only suggest violation of the statute.
Injunctive relief was also dismissed, on standing. Plaintiff must plead sufficient facts suggesting that there are “continuing, present adverse effects” traceable to Defendant’s conduct. What he pleaded instead was a single day of calls in April 2025, five months of silence before the amended complaint, and no allegation that anyone called after he asked to be removed from a list.
Plaintiff pleaded only direct liability against Orozco. Direct liability requires initiating the call, and the allegations against Orozco describe participation rather than initiation. She was on the same call, she held the information Jessica and Jacob collected, and she was the closer at the end of the transfer train. She was obviously on the call, but she did not initiate it. Thus, Count I fails as to her, and Counts II and III fail against her for the same solicitation reason they failed against Credit & Debt.
The lesson here is that the content of the call can be crucial at the pleading stage. A defendant facing a DNC or caller ID count should read the complaint’s own description of the conversation and see if it qualifies as “solicitation.” Count I and its class are still standing, so discovery is coming, but the case that goes into discovery now is much smaller than the one that was filed initially.
We will keep you posted, TCPAWorld!