ONE CALL IS ALL IT TAKES: Fulton Bank Suffers a Tough Loss in a TCPA Class Action And There Are Lessons Here

Law Conference of Champions V ticket prices as I type: $439.00 (and rising).

Fulton Bank was denied arbitration in a TCPA class action yesterday– not because the consumer did not accept the agreement but because the terms of the arbitration provision were simply too narrow.

This is a mistake you MUST avoid.

In Ertl v. Fulton Bank, N.A. 2026 WL 3218580 (W.D. Va. Oct. 27, 2026) the court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration determining the scope of the agreement simply did not encompass the marketing calls at issue.

Plaintiff had been a customer of Fulton at the time as he had a checking account with the bank.

In opening the checking account Plaintiff had agreed to terms and conditions in which he had agreed to arbitrate all disputes “that in any way arises from or relates to this agreement, your account, any ATM Card, debit card, check card or similar card, any account transaction or attempted transaction (including deposits, payments, transfers and withdrawals, whether by check, card, ACH or otherwise), formal overdraft protection arrangements and informal overdraft services, including any overdraft line of credit or overdraft transfer agreement, non-sufficient funds and overdraft items, and the advertising, disclosures, practices, procedures and agreements related to the foregoing…”

Fulton’s number was on the national DNC and he had also apparently asked Fulton not to market to him.

Nonetheless Fulton allegedly sent Plaintiff a single prerecorded call requesting that he “call Fulton Bank if he was in the market for a new loan.” Fulton was angry and sued in a TCPA class action.

Fulton moved to compel arbitration but the court denied the motion finding the dispute over the unwanted call did not fit within the scope of the provision:

Fulton’s arbitration clause is expressly limited to disputes “aris[ing] from or relat[ing] to” Ertl’s checking account, the Rules, and an enumerated list of related features and services. (Def.’s Reply Ex. A at 28.) Furthermore, the list of related features is exclusive, not illustrative, as the clause does not use language such as “including, but not limited to” or “for example.”

Get it?

Because the bank had expressly limited the terms of its arbitration agreement to disputes arising out of the services provided in connection with the checking account the clause did not pertain to calls made to Plaintiff to offer him other products and services– and the one call at issue was to offer a new loan, not a new checking account.

Eesh.

Making matters worse the court suggests this could have been avoided if Fulton had just included the common language “including but not limited to”– but it did not do so.

That’s tough.

Also tough: notice the entire class action arose out of ONE prerecorded marketing call to the Plaintiff.

Callers are often confused by the TCPA’s rules because the DNC provisions offer a one-call safe harbor, but the prerecorded call provisions of 227(b) do not! So even a single unwanted prerecorded call can– and often does– result in a TCPA class action.

You have to stay up to date on this stuff folks, and the best way to do that is by attending Law Conference of Champions V! Two full days of CLE focused on TCPA, data privacy and AI regulatory issues to help keep you SHARP and PROFITABLE! Prices rise daily so BUY NOW!

Chat soon.