Dobronski schools Advisorworld + some nice lessons
- Peter Schneider
- 1 hour ago
- 7 min read
There is something to be learned from most motions to dismiss and the ruling, but the more the defendant works for it the more there is to get. And in Dobronski v. Uppleger, No. 25-10168, 2026 LX 130090 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2026) the defendant Advisorworld worked for it.
They worked for it so hard I pulled their motion. But first the background, pro se plaintiff Mark Dobronski brought a pro-se TCPA lawsuit against several parties for unwanted telephone calls. One of the defendants moved to dismiss. I have no information in this case other than the court filings, which I will generally assume to be true for the purposes of the article. But you should follow the case and the outcome for the ultimate truth of the facts alleged.
Before we get started let me clarify some Advisorworld slight of hand that confused me for a few minutes. Advisorworld is going to allege that Mr. Dobronski visited website AnnuiityRatesHQ.com (with a Florida physical address) and requested calls. But in their arguments they often refer back to their own website Advisorworld.com.
In their motion, Advisorworld claimed Mr. Dobronski completed an online inquiry form on their website, assented to the website's terms of service and privacy policy, and claimed they captured his IP address in doing so. They wanted the lawsuit against them dismissed for improper venue and because Mr. Dobronski allegedly asked for the calls.
Dobronski had actually visited AnnuityRatesHQ.com several times late into the night on January 8, 2025, the night before he complains he began receiving calls from Advisorworld.com. Based on the IP address logging system Advisorworld.com uses, he accessed one of a number of pathways from the main page that lead to an inquiry form to learn more about current annuity rates through an annuity report . . . Prominently featured at the bottom of every page is a link to the Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions [a 'browsewrap' claim] . . . According to Advisorworld.com’s IP address logging program, the IP address used to submit the “Stanley Norris” inquiry returned to the website on January 10, 2025, seven days before this lawsuit was filed, and spent several minutes reviewing both the Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions . . . Based upon the records of Advisorworld.com, Dobronski completed this process at least three separate times, under three distinct aliases, using three phone numbers.
Browsewrap lawsuits are much harder on defendants, as Advisorworld is going to find out, and particularly at the motion to dismiss stage when the court cannot consider extraneous evidence so their purpose in all of this is just trying to tar and feather Mr. Dobronski. The accusations are so salacious I had to pull Mr. Dobronski's response to get his version of events.
At no time has Plaintiff provided “prior express consent” or “prior express written consent” for any of the Defendants to initiate any telephone call that includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing, using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to Plaintiff’s residential telephone number. At no time has Plaintiff had an “established business relationship” with either of the Defendants.
Mr. Dobronski proceeds to light Advisorworld up, I'll hit the highlights:
Weston admits that at the time that the web inquiry form was purportedly filled out on January 8, 2025, the forum-selection clause was absent. What may appear on the web site today is irrelevant; what is relevant is what appeared on the web site on January 8, 2025. AWI goes on to argue that ”Dobronski had actual notice of Advsiorworld.com’s terms and conditions before he filed this lawsuit.” In support, AWI cites to the Weston Declaration but nothing appearing there explains or supports AWI’s argument . . . what AWI has not shown is, whether Dobronski had actual notice of the terms and conditions on January 8, 2025. AWI admits that AWI must show that the “person unambiguously manifests assent.” However, the “assent” contained in the web inquiry form supplied by AWI recites: “I acknowledge that a verification call will be made to confirm the provided details.” Not one word is mentioned about a forum-selection clause. Also, it must be noted, that the web form appeared on the web site for AnnuityRatesHQ.com, not Advisorworld.com. At best, the web form appearing on AnnuityRateHQ’s web site provided consent to AnnuityRateHQ – not AWI – to contact Plaintiff, but not using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Nowhere is there any evidence that Plaintiff consented to receiving telemarketing calls from AWI using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, and to do so multiple times. In fact, within AWI’s Motion, there is evidence that Plaintiff made express demand to AWI to “do not call” again. The documentation submitted by AWI evidences that on January 9, 2025 at 9:00 A.M., Plaintiff made an express “do not call” demand to AWI and a demand for a copy of AWI’s written do not call policy (“. . . Please don’t call me again. Put me on your do not call list. Please send me a copy of your written do not call policy. I’ve asked you not to call me. I’ve asked you to send me a copy of your written do not call policy . . . .”).
My take on their motion to Dismiss
Advisorworld lived and died by the bold claim made on the first page of their motion Defendant’s records, confirmed through IP address logs, establish that Dobronski personally completed an online inquiry form on Defendant’s website. The court was going to be laser focused on looking for Advisorworld to substantiate this claim with something, and they didn't, and it showed their desperation.
The Court Rips Advisorworld apart
The court savaged Advisorworld, first on the shoddy presentation of is "evidence":
Mr. Weston acknowledges that, "at that time [that Plaintiff allegedly visited the website, i.e., January 8, 2025], we did not rely on a separate Privacy Policy checkbox to indicate consent to be contacted." . . . Mr. Weston's declaration does not include copies of or screenshots from any version of Advisorworld's Privacy Policy or Terms and Conditions . . . No information is provided by Advisorworld about when this screenshot was taken or whether it reflects the state of the AnnuityRatesHQ website as of January 8, 2025 . . . the materials Advisorworld relies upon are unauthenticated and incomplete. Advisorworld relies on provisions that are (or were) purportedly set forth in two webpages: a page containing a Privacy Policy and a page containing Terms and Conditions. In lieu of providing complete copies of these pages, Advisorworld provides screenshots of specific provisions that it claims appeared in those larger documents. The screenshots are provided in the body of Advisorworld's brief rather than as part of a declaration by someone who could testify to their authenticity . . . Further, the screenshots themselves do not reveal when (if ever) these particular provisions were posted to the AnnuityRatesHQ website. This omission deprives the Court of sufficient grounds to conclude that these terms appeared on the website as of a specific date in January 2025. In short, Advisorworld's failure to submit authenticated, complete copies of the documents it believes set forth its agreement with Plaintiff dooms its motion to dismiss based on this purported contract.
Then on browsewrap versus clickwrap:
The circumstances here are materially different than those in Fjeta, Meyer, and Hu. Here, Plaintiff was not advised that, by entering information into a form on the AnnuityRatesHQ website, he was agreeing to be bound by specific Terms and Conditions, including a clause specifying that disputes would be resolved in Ontario, Canada. The form he allegedly completed asked him to provide contact information and stated that he would be receiving a "verification call . . . to confirm" the information he had provided. Nothing in this language notified Plaintiff that he would be bound by terms that were allegedly provided elsewhere on the website. As a final attempt to secure dismissal based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Advisorworld argues that Plaintiff had "constructive" notice of the forum-selection clause because, at least according to Advisorworld, Plaintiff "view[ed] Advisorworld's Terms and Conditions before filing this lawsuit." This argument lacks both factual and legal support. As to the facts, Advisorworld's (largely unauthenticated) extrinsic evidence fails to demonstrate that Plaintiff accessed the website's purported Terms and Conditions before filing this lawsuit. And even if the factual underpinnings of this argument were borne out by Advisorworld's own evidence, Advisorworld does not cite any authority or otherwise explain how merely accessing a webpage serves as sufficient evidence that a user agrees to be bound by its contents. [take note of this last bit, all too often telemarkers claim that be merely looking at a website with arbitration terms post lawsuit the plaintiff is now bound to arbitration]
Equitable defenses versus statutory claims
Frequently telemarketers raise the affirmative defense of unclean hands and other equity based arguments. This opinion takes them to task:
Advisorworld next argues that Plaintiff's "claim should be barred" because his conduct—"filling out inquiry forms under false names intending to entrap Advisorworld.com into TCPA violations"—falls within the "unclean hands doctrine." To the extent Advisorworld claims that the unclean hands doctrine bars all of Plaintiff's claims for relief, the Court disagrees. The doctrine of unclean hands is an equitable defense. Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Custom Nutrition Labs., LLC, 912 F.3d 316, 344 (6th Cir. 2018) (stating that the "unclean hands doctrine allows a court to deny equitable relief" under certain circumstances); Cyber Sols. Int'l, LLC v. Pro Mktg. Sales, Inc., 634 F. App'x 557, 567 (6th Cir. 2016) ("The doctrine of unclean hands is an equitable concept that allows a court to deny injunctive or declaratory relief . . . ."). Here, Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief. The Court clarifies that the doctrine of unclean hands would not bar Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages as that is not a claim for equitable relief.
Advisorworld shows their true colors
At this stage this fight between Dobronski and Advisorworld sounds a little he-said, she said because there are many allegations and little evidence to judge them by. If Advisorworld was truly wronged by Dobronski and had the goods to prove it, the simple solution would be a counterclaim in the same lawsuit. But what does Advisorworld do? Sues Mr. Dobronski in a different court in Canada.
Advisorworld has now initiated a lawsuit against Dobronski in Ontario, Canada, alleging fraudulent inducement and entrapment among other things. The case is Filed at No. CV-25-00751124-0000.
Got a Case Like This?
If you’ve encountered similar issues with telemarketers, debt collectors, or bankruptcy-related harassment, we might feature your story in a future blog post. Email your situation or legal filing to peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com.
📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000
📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com
Note: The opinions in this blog are mine (Peter Schneider) and do not constitute legal advice. If you're considering suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.