Serial TCPA Plaintiffs: How Businesses Defend Repeat Filers

At least 35 prepaid phones, each kept charged so creditors would call. In that case, a federal court in Pennsylvania held that a serial TCPA plaintiff had no standing to sue. I don’t think most repeat filers are that easy to beat, and other courts have distinguished or disagreed with that ruling. A plaintiff’s filing history and phone habits are evidence, and they can reshape the settlement number. In my view, a company sued by a repeat filer often has more to work with than the complaint suggests.

Who counts as a serial TCPA plaintiff?

There’s no legal definition. The phrase describes someone who files TCPA suits or sends demand letters again and again, sometimes using phone numbers that exist mainly to attract calls.

The extreme version is the plaintiff in Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank. The court found that she “purchased at least thirty-five cell phones and cell phone numbers with prepaid minutes for the purpose of filing lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.” Asked at deposition what she meant by her business, she answered, “It’s my business. It’s what I do,” according to the testimony quoted in the opinion.

Later courts have treated Stoops as an extreme case. A repeat filer may just be someone who gets a lot of unwanted calls and has learned the statute, or someone who runs a real household phone alongside a few extra lines. I think the serial-plaintiff label is a description, not a defense, and a brief that leads with name-calling usually reads as weakness to a judge. What wins is a record about the specific phone that received your calls.

Does a repeat filer have standing to sue?

In most of the decisions I’ve reviewed, yes. The argument has worked mainly when the evidence showed the phone existed to collect calls, not when the plaintiff had just filed a lot of cases.

The Stoops court granted summary judgment for the bank. It found that the plaintiff suffered no injury because her privacy and economic interests weren’t invaded, and, in the alternative, that her interests fell outside what the statute protects. The court wrote that “it is unfathomable that Congress considered a consumer who files TCPA actions as a business when it enacted the TCPA.”

Other courts have refused to go that far. In Cunningham v. Rapid Response Monitoring Services, a federal court in Tennessee, ruling on a motion to dismiss, rejected the argument that a plaintiff loses his rights by becoming a “professional plaintiff.” The court wrote, “Insofar as Stoops endorses such a result, this Court disagrees,” and added: “The Court sees no authority for the proposition that his privacy interests ceased to exist merely because he realized that he could profit from suing for their invasion.”

A federal court in Massachusetts drew a line that’s easier to apply. In Katz v. Liberty Power Corp., it held that the question “boils down to whether he maintained the number that Liberty Power’s agents called for any purpose other than attracting telemarketing calls to support his TCPA lawsuits.” The plaintiff there said the line was a household emergency landline, and the court denied summary judgment.

So the count of prior suits doesn’t decide anything by itself. In Stoops and Katz, what mattered was why the plaintiff kept the number that received the calls. The earlier post on TCPA standing walks through the Article III rules that apply to every TCPA plaintiff, repeat filer or not.

Is the zone-of-interests argument still alive in California?

It’s weaker in California than Stoops suggests, at least for autodialer and prerecorded-voice claims. For Do Not Call claims, a related argument about the phone’s use is still open.

The “zone of interests” test asks whether a plaintiff is the kind of person a statute’s private right of action was written to protect. The Ninth Circuit, which covers California, answered that question from the text when it reversed a dismissal in Chennette v. Porch.com. The statute lets “A person or entity” sue over autodialed and prerecorded calls under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), and the court concluded that “Section 227(b) thus covers calls to the cell phones of businesses as well as individuals.” Chennette involved contractors who used their phones for work, not serial plaintiffs, and it was decided on the pleadings. I read its text-first approach as making a Stoops-style zone-of-interests argument harder to win in the Ninth Circuit.

Do Not Call claims are different, because the Registry rules protect residential subscribers. The Chennette panel held that a registered cell phone is presumed residential, even when it’s used partly for business, but wrote that “Defendants may overcome the presumption by showing that plaintiffs use their cell phones to such an extent and in such a manner that the presumption is rebutted.” The factors it listed include “how much plaintiffs use their phones for business or employment” and “who pays for the phone bills.”

I’d press one more point. A plaintiff who testifies, as the Stoops plaintiff did, that a phone is used for “my business,” and that the business is suing callers, has given the defense a factual basis to argue the line isn’t residential at all. I haven’t found a court that has adopted that argument for a phone kept to collect calls. It’s a merits argument rooted in the statute’s own words. It doesn’t depend on whether a judge buys Stoops.

Can winning on standing backfire?

Yes, in a case that started in state court. Article III limits federal courts, and California’s state courts aren’t bound by it.

Repeat filers sometimes sue in California superior court. If a defendant removes the case to federal court and then argues the plaintiff lacks Article III standing, the removal statute points to remand, not dismissal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) says: “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” Stoops itself had been removed from state court and still ended in a federal judgment for the bank, so results vary. But a defendant should plan for the chance that a standing win sends the plaintiff back to state court with the merits untouched.

That’s why I’d decide on removal and the standing argument together. Sometimes the better move is to stay in state court and fight on the merits. Our post on removing a TCPA case to federal court covers that choice in more detail.

What discovery should we take from a repeat filer?

Discovery should target the phone, then the plaintiff’s litigation history. These arguments are strongest on a factual record. Stoops was decided on deposition testimony, while the pleading-stage challenge in Cunningham failed.

Start with the number your company called: when the plaintiff got it, the carrier, whether it’s billed as a personal or business line, who pays the bill, and how it’s listed or given out. Ask how many other numbers the plaintiff controls and when each was acquired. In Katz, the court noted that the plaintiff’s additional lines “might be relevant to a fact finder’s determination of whether the phone line that Liberty Power’s agents called was actually maintained for some purpose other than filing TCPA lawsuits.”

Then ask for prior suits and demand letters. The plaintiff’s own call logs and recordings are fair targets too. Settlement amounts are harder to get because they’re often confidential, so don’t build the defense around them.

Do consent and bad-faith arguments work against serial plaintiffs?

Real consent works against anyone. The argument that the plaintiff wanted the calls works poorly as a stand-alone defense.

The Stoops court ruled for the bank on standing but rejected its consent-style defenses. Relying on the FCC’s rules, it held that “the affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk and volenti non fit injuria do not apply to the TCPA.” It added that even if they applied, “Defendant would still not be entitled to summary judgment.” Even with 35 phones in evidence, the bad-motive defense went nowhere in that case.

Consent obtained during a call is narrow, too. In Katz, an agent offered to call back after a bad connection and the plaintiff agreed, and the court found that “Mr. Katz consented to at most that one return call.” A repeat filer may stay on the line and ask questions to identify the caller. In my view, that engagement is unlikely to count as consent to the calls before or after it.

The consent records that win are the ordinary ones: a web form, a keyword opt-in, a signed agreement, a recorded authorization. If a repeat filer signed up for your texts and then replied STOP, the case depends on your opt-out records and how fast the number was suppressed. Whether consent given out loud on a call is enough for prerecorded telemarketing is a separate question, covered in the post on the Fifth Circuit’s oral-consent ruling. Our post on proving consent at summary judgment covers how to get those records admitted.

What does a plaintiff’s history do to the settlement value?

Mostly through the class question. A serial plaintiff who files as a class representative may not be able to serve as one, and that can shrink a class case to one person’s claim.

In Nghiem v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, a federal court in the Central District of California denied class certification in a text-message case. According to the opinion, the named plaintiff was a plaintiffs’ attorney who had represented TCPA plaintiffs at least six times and had enrolled in several text programs around the same time. The court wrote, “It is undeniable that Nghiem is no ordinary class representative for a TCPA action,” and held that his claims weren’t typical of the class and that he couldn’t adequately represent it. On the defenses unique to him, the court said: “It does not matter whether Defendants will ultimately prevail on these defenses.”

So a defendant doesn’t have to win the standing fight to change the case. It has to show the fight is coming and will dominate the litigation. Once a class is off the table, the exposure is one plaintiff’s calls: $500 per violation for autodialer and prerecorded-voice claims, up to $500 for Do Not Call claims, and up to $1,500 per violation if a court finds the violation willful or knowing, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) and (c)(5).

A repeat filer has every reason to know the per-call math, and to know what a deposition about the phones could cost in the next case. My view is that paying a quick demand without testing the phone story is usually the most expensive option over time, because it tells the market your company pays. When settlement makes sense, the release should cover every number the plaintiff controls and every related person or entity that could bring the next claim. Our post on release terms for individual TCPA settlements covers what else the agreement should say.

First moves when a repeat filer’s demand arrives

1. Put a litigation hold on call and text logs, dialer and platform data, and the consent records for every number tied to the claimant.
2. Pull the opt-out and internal do-not-call logs for those numbers, with dates.
3. Pull the National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and the version dates used for the campaigns that reached them.
4. Gather vendor and lead-source contracts, call scripts, and any recordings of calls with the claimant.
5. Talk to a lawyer before answering the demand, contacting the claimant, or offering anything to settle.

The firm’s California TCPA defense lawyers page explains how it approaches claims involving repeat TCPA filers.

Questions businesses ask about serial TCPA plaintiffs

Can we get a case dismissed because the plaintiff files lots of TCPA suits?

Not on that fact alone. In Stoops and Katz, courts looked at why the plaintiff kept the phone that was called. In Nghiem, the court looked at how the plaintiff came to receive the messages. A long filing history makes discovery worth taking, and it can support standing and class arguments. I think a motion built only on the plaintiff’s filing count is likely to lose, and it can make the court less receptive to your stronger arguments later.

Does a serial plaintiff’s history matter in a class action?

It can matter more there than anywhere. A class representative must have claims typical of the class and must adequately represent it. When a defendant has a factual basis for defenses unique to the named plaintiff, such as a claim the plaintiff set out to manufacture, a court may deny certification, as the Central District of California did in Nghiem. That changes the exposure from a class to one person.

Should we just settle quickly with a repeat filer?

Sometimes, but not by reflex. A small individual claim can cost less to settle than to defend. The mistake is settling before anyone has looked at the plaintiff’s phones and your own consent records. Those facts set the price. A release that covers all of the plaintiff’s numbers and related claimants is worth negotiating for.

When a repeat filer sues your company

If your company is facing a TCPA claim from a plaintiff with a long filing history, the plaintiff’s phones and prior cases can matter as much as your own call logs. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims brought by repeat TCPA filers. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

The statute is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act at 47 U.S.C. § 227. The removal statute is 28 U.S.C. § 1447.

The court decisions are Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 197 F. Supp. 3d 782 (W.D. Pa. 2016); Cunningham v. Rapid Response Monitoring Services, Inc., 251 F. Supp. 3d 1187 (M.D. Tenn. 2017); Katz v. Liberty Power Corp., No. 18-cv-10506-ADB (D. Mass. Sept. 24, 2019); Nghiem v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., 318 F.R.D. 375 (C.D. Cal. 2016); and Chennette v. Porch.com, Inc., 50 F.4th 1217 (9th Cir. 2022).

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of March 10, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Courts and the FCC change the rules in this area often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.