Home security has been one of the TCPA’s most litigated industries for a structural reason. Equipment makers and monitoring companies sell through independent authorized dealers, and the dealers do the telemarketing. When a dealer robocalls or ignores the Do Not Call Registry, plaintiffs sue the brand on the theory that the dealer was its agent. The leading appellate decision rejected that theory for two equipment makers, and the evidence that won it came from how they handled complaints.
Why do alarm brands get sued over calls they didn’t make?
Because the dealer is often judgment-proof and the brand isn’t. In Hodgin v. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp., 885 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2018), the plaintiffs “did not allege that UTC and Honeywell directly violated the TCPA,” and the court explained that “they claimed that both companies were vicariously liable for illegal calls made by telemarketers promoting UTC and Honeywell products.” The case came out of a multidistrict litigation that consolidated class actions over home-security telemarketing.
The legal hook is agency law. The Fourth Circuit noted that, according to the FCC, vicarious liability under the TCPA is governed by the federal common law of agency. That body of law reaches formal agency, and it also reaches apparent authority and ratification. Each of those three theories gives a plaintiff a different way to reach the brand, and each one is proven with different evidence.
The exposure makes the effort worthwhile for plaintiffs. A recipient can recover up to $500 per call under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) and (c)(5), and a court may increase that to up to three times the amount if it finds the violation was willful or knowing. A dealer campaign of prerecorded calls to residential lines can reach hundreds of thousands of numbers.
Does an authorized dealer badge make the dealer the brand’s agent?
Not by itself, at least in the courts that have looked hardest at the question. UTC’s dealer agreement let one retailer, known in the case as VMS, call itself an “Authorized GE Security Dealer.” The same district court had earlier treated that permission as enough to create a fact question on apparent authority. In 2016, ruling in the consolidated MDL, the court reversed course.
The court wrote that in Mey v. Monitronics International, 959 F. Supp. 2d 927 (N.D. W. Va. 2013), it had denied summary judgment “on the basis that the fact that VMS was permitted to hold itself out as an authorized dealer cloaked VMS with the apparent authority to act as the agent of UTC. This Court respectfully disagrees with that ruling.” It then granted summary judgment to UTC and Honeywell in In re Monitronics International, Inc., 223 F. Supp. 3d 514 (N.D. W. Va. 2016).
The dealer agreement helped. According to the Fourth Circuit, the agreement stated that the parties did not intend “to create an employment, agency, franchise or other relationship,” and it “required VMS to comply with all applicable laws and regulations.” Contract labels don’t decide agency, but they’re the first exhibit a court reads, and a dealer agreement without them invites a fight the brand doesn’t need.
What is ratification, and how did the alarm makers defeat it?
On appeal the plaintiffs relied on ratification alone. Their theory was that UTC and Honeywell learned of the dealers’ robocalls and Registry violations, failed to stop them, rewarded the dealers with volume rebates, and kept the benefit of the extra equipment sales. The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment because the plaintiffs “failed to proffer more than a scintilla of evidence” of vicarious liability.
The record of what each company did after complaints arrived decided it. The court described how “UTC also required the head of VMS to attend an ethics presentation during which UTC reminded authorized dealers that they were prohibited from representing themselves as UTC’s or GE Security’s agents and were contractually obligated to comply with all applicable telemarketing laws.” UTC then terminated the dealer agreement. Honeywell, the court said, responded “by opening an investigation into the alleged misconduct and informing ISI that its telemarketing practices had placed their business relationship in jeopardy,” and in January 2013 it terminated that agreement too.
The rebate and benefit arguments failed on proof. The court held that “the connection between the rebates and the purported TCPA violations is so attenuated that Plaintiffs’ claim that UTC and Honeywell intended the rebates to reward such misconduct amounts to mere speculation.” It also noted that “It is undisputed that UTC and Honeywell did not receive any direct proceeds from the telemarketers’ sale of home-security products to consumers.” A monitoring company that collects a monthly fee on every account a dealer sells will have a harder time making that last point.
Is the Ninth Circuit harder on brands than the Fourth?
On ratification, yes. California businesses should read Hodgin alongside Henderson v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 918 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2019), a debt collection case that reversed summary judgment for the principal. The Ninth Circuit held that “a reasonable jury could find that USA Funds ratified the debt collectors’ calling practices by remaining silent and continuing to accept the benefits of the collectors’ tortious conduct despite knowing what the collectors were doing or, at the very least, knowing of facts that would have led a reasonable person to investigate further.”
The facts explain the difference. In Henderson, the court noted that “USA Funds forwarded all consumer complaints about the debt collectors to Navient, including alleged TCPA violations,” and it never ended the contract. UTC and Honeywell warned their dealers and then cut them off. A brand that passes complaints down the chain and does nothing else looks like the principal in Henderson, whatever its dealer agreement says.
The trend in other circuits favors brands that act. On June 24, 2026, the Seventh Circuit reversed a summary judgment against an insurer over calls placed by a telemarketer that a vendor hired by two of its agents had quietly subcontracted, holding in Hossfeld v. Allstate Insurance Co. that “No reasonable jury could construe Allstate’s response as a total failure to act tantamount to ratification of Atlantic’s calls.” It cited Hodgin for the same point.
| Theory | What the plaintiff must show | Evidence that defeats it |
|---|---|---|
| Actual authority | The brand controlled the dealer’s calling or told it to call | Dealer agreement disclaiming agency, no control over scripts, lists, or dialers |
| Apparent authority | The brand’s own conduct led the consumer to believe the dealer spoke for it | Limits on use of the brand name in calls, no brand-supplied scripts or caller ID |
| Ratification | The brand knew of the violations and accepted their benefits without objection | Documented investigation, written warnings, termination, no direct proceeds |
| Federal exposure | Calls violated § 227(b) or § 227(c) | Up to $500 per violation, up to three times that if willful or knowing |
What should an alarm brand’s dealer program include?
A complaint process that produces the record Hodgin relied on. Every telemarketing complaint about a dealer should get a written response to the consumer, a written notice to the dealer, a deadline for the dealer’s explanation, and a decision logged by someone with authority to suspend or terminate. That file is the brand’s ratification defense, and it has to exist before the class action does.
The dealer agreement should do four things. It should disclaim agency, require compliance with the TCPA and state telemarketing laws, forbid dealers from using the brand’s name in their caller ID or opening script, and give the brand audit and termination rights tied to telemarketing complaints. Volume rebates are lawful, but a rebate schedule that rises with call volume, not equipment purchases, hands a plaintiff the argument the Hodgin plaintiffs couldn’t prove.
What to gather when a dealer-call lawsuit names the brand
- Put a litigation hold on the dealer file, the complaint log, and any call recordings, scripts, or lead lists the brand received from the dealer.
- Pull every opt-out or do-not-call request the brand or the dealer received from the plaintiff, with dates.
- Request the dealer’s Registry scrub records and version dates for the campaign, under the dealer agreement’s audit clause if needed.
- Collect every version of the dealer agreement, the rebate schedules, and the brand’s written warnings and termination notices.
- Have a lawyer review the file before the brand answers, contacts the plaintiff, or makes any offer to settle.
Step four is the one that wins or loses these cases, because ratification depends on what the brand knew and what it did next. Lawyers defending dealer telemarketing claims will usually build the summary judgment motion around that chronology. The earlier posts on franchisor liability for franchisee texts, indemnity clauses in vendor contracts, and solar and home improvement leads cover the same agency questions in neighboring industries.
Questions about home security telemarketing claims
Can a monitoring company be liable for a dealer’s calls?
It can, if the plaintiff proves agency. A monitoring company that buys accounts from dealers and collects recurring fees on them is closer to the calls than an equipment maker that sells through distributors, and Hodgin’s point about direct proceeds won’t help it as much. Its best defense is usually the same complaint-handling record and a dealer agreement that keeps it out of the dealer’s calling decisions.
Does terminating a dealer admit the calls were illegal?
No. In Hodgin the terminations were evidence that the brands repudiated the conduct, and the court treated them that way. Waiting to act until the brand is sued makes termination look like litigation strategy, which is why the warnings and deadlines should start with the first complaint.
Are door-to-door sales covered by the TCPA?
No. The TCPA governs the phone line and the fax machine, not the front door. Many home security dealers pair door-to-door sales with follow-up calls and texts, though. Those follow-up messages are covered. A customer who signed a contract at the door has given the dealer a number and a relationship, and the consent language in that contract matters.
Does the brand need its own internal do-not-call list?
If it calls or texts consumers itself, yes. The federal rules require a company that makes telemarketing calls to keep an internal do-not-call list and honor requests. The earlier post on internal do-not-call policies covers what that list needs. A brand that only sells through dealers should still record and forward every request it receives.
If your company is sued over a dealer’s calls
If your company is accused of liability for telemarketing calls an authorized dealer made, the dealer agreement and the record of how your company handled complaints usually decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving telemarketing by authorized dealers. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227.
The decisions discussed are Hodgin v. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp., 885 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2018); In re Monitronics International, Inc., 223 F. Supp. 3d 514 (N.D. W. Va. 2016); Henderson v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 918 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2019); and Hossfeld v. Allstate Insurance Co., Nos. 25-1518 and 25-1672 (7th Cir. June 24, 2026).
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of July 20, 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.