Federal court discusses call-within-a-call artificial or prerecorded voice 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) claims
- Peter Schneider
- Oct 21
- 6 min read
TCPA plaintiffs George Moore and Robert Hossfeld are back in the saddle doing god's work - unraveling the complex relationship the big insurance companies have with telemarketers to benefit from illegal calls while hiding their responsibility in initiating them. The case is Moore v. Farmers Grp., Inc., No. 23-cv-16587, 2025 LX 420508 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2025).
In this lawsuit Mr. Moore and Mr. Hossfeld are working on telemarketing selling Farmers insurance, and although both are on the national do-not-call list and make specific do not call requests, they still got a lot of calls pitching Farmers insurance:
Hossfeld received a call to another one of his telephone numbers from an operator who told Hossfeld he worked for the Justin Robert Farmers agency and at some point transferred Hossfeld to a woman named Maria. Hossfeld made a do-not-call request on this call . . . Hossfeld received another call at his 8888 number. Hossfeld spoke with the operator, who explained that Hossfeld could save money on car insurance. After taking down some of Hossfeld's information, the operator tried to transfer the call to a licensed agent. This transfer failed, however, and caused the following "prerecorded message or artificial voice" to play: "This phone number is in the Do Not Call list. Do not transfer this phone number." During the call, Hossfeld also asked what company the operator worked for, and the operator replied that he worked with "Farmers, among others." In 2023, Hossfeld received four calls soliciting Farmers insurance products. On January 20, Hossfeld received a call to his 8888 number from a person who, after recording some of Hossfeld's information, tried unsuccessfully to transfer him to a licensed agent. The caller indicated "that his company, U.S. Auto Care, worked with Farmers, among others." On January 27, Hossfeld received another call to his 8888 number from a phone with last four digits 0599, also selling insurance. On May 2, Hossfeld answered another call from the 0599 number. After answering some questions, the caller transferred Hossfeld to a Farmers insurance agent who tried to sell Hossfeld insurance. Hossfeld received a final call from the 0599 number on July 5, again from a caller seeking to sell Defendants' insurance products. Plaintiff Moore's experience is similar.
Based on the call that started with a live operator, and then failed to transfer with an artificial or pre-recorded voice saying "This phone number is in the Do Not Call list. Do not transfer this phone number", Mr. Hossfeld included a claim under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).
As alleged, a live operator initiated this call and, after speaking with Hossfeld, attempted to transfer the line to a licensed agent. This transfer appears to have failed, however, because when the operator tried to patch in the licensed agent, the following recording played: "This phone number is in the Do Not Call list. Do not transfer this phone number." Other than this call, Plaintiffs allege no other calls involving use of any prerecorded or artificial voice. Plaintiffs would have the Court interpret 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) to cover calls made by live operators if at some point during the call an artificial or prerecorded voice plays. This is a question of statutory interpretation, and when interpreting statutes, the Court begins with the text's "ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." . . . The Court focuses on the word "make," which appears in Section 227(b)(1)(A) as part of the phrase "make any call." The ordinary meaning of making a call means dialing, placing, or initiating a call, either manually by a human being or—as Congress recognized when it passed the TCPA—through automated technology that allowed calls to be placed en masse without need for a live human operator, i.e., a robocall . . . Based on this interpretation, the Court concludes Section 227(b)(1)(A) does not reach the September 13, 2021 call. Plaintiffs allege that a live operator initiated this call, and that this operator spoke with Hossfeld and took down some of Hossfeld's information. At some point during the call, the operator attempted to transfer the call to a licensed agent, which caused a message to play that Hossfeld's call should not be transferred.
Here is the big silver lining - had Mr. Hossfeld alleged that it was the entity that received the transfer that played the "This phone number is in the Do Not Call list. Do not transfer this phone number" [because that is almost certainly what happened] this claimed likely would have survived the motion to dismiss stage.
Mr. Hossfeld and Mr. Moore show us the way a second time
Both plaintiffs pursued claims under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) (See our article here) because both had asked the callers to stop calling, yet the calls continued.
These regulations provide that when a telemarketing caller "receives a request from a residential telephone subscriber not to receive calls," that request must be recorded and honored "for 5 years from the time the request is made." Id. § 64.1200(d)(3), (6). These regulations also apply to the entities that hire callers to make calls on their behalf. Id. § 64.1200(d)(3) (the "person or entity on whose behalf the call [was] made will be liable for any failures to honor the do-not-call request."). Plaintiffs allege Hossfeld received four telemarketing calls in 2023 regarding Farmers products, despite making a do-not-call request within the preceding five years.
First, note that if you make do-not-call requests, allege it in your complaint!
Defendants argue that (1) Hossfeld did not allege making a do-not-call request on September 13, 2021; and (2) the complaint does not specify whether on July 21, 2020 Hossfeld requested to be placed on Defendants' internal do-not-call list or, rather, only on the do-not-call list for the third-party agency that placed the call. The Court agrees that the complaint does not allege that Hossfeld made a do-not-call request on September 13, 2021. But for the July 21, 2020 call, the complaint alleges that Hossfeld's do-not-request was made to a representative of the "Justin Robert Farmers agency." This suffices to plead a violation of TCPA's internal do-not-call regulations, which extend liability for not honoring do-not-call requests beyond the callers to the entities on whose behalf calls were made. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3-5). As the complaint alleges that Hossfeld was solicited to buy Farmers goods and services from an agency using Farmers' trade name, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the calls were made on Farmers' behalf.
Telemarketers and Sellers build a complex web so that the Seller can pretend he doesn't know about the Telemarketer's illegal calls and thus escape liability. And the Telemarketer is probably offshore and out of reach of the courts. But 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) uses this complexity against these relationships because they have a duty to pass do-not-call information between each other, but they were set up to specifically pretend they don't know each other.
Do-not-call requests also apply to affiliates of the entity on whose behalf the call was made if a "consumer reasonably would expect them to be included given the identification of the caller and ... the product being advertised." 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(5). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "intentionally obscure the differentiation between themselves and their intercompany relationships to the public" and operate generally as a "Farmers" group of insurance companies. Viewing these allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court concludes a reasonable consumer would expect all Defendants to be included in a do-not-call-request made to a telemarketer advertising Farmers products. That is, to the extent Defendants contend Hossfeld's July 21, 2020 do-not-call request was inadequately specific as to which Defendants were meant to be covered, the Court rejects the argument.
Mr. Moore and Mr. Hossfeld are doing great work, and this ruling, while on its face not a complete win, points everyone in the right direction on how to attack these complex relationships.
Got a Case Like This?
If you’ve had similar problems 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.
Are telemarketers bothering you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana?
I handle TCPA lawsuits in Washington State and Oregon, and may be able to help.
📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000
📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com
Note: The opinions in this blog are mine (Peter Schneider) and do not count as legal advice. If you're thinking of suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.