Fighting Off Garbage Counterclaims in TCPA Lawsuits: A Comprehensive Guide

Telemarketing is a lifeline for many businesses. However, it also opens the door to lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). A popular YouTube channel documents unsolicited calls and exposes the responsible sellers. The take the call creator often encounters the same offenders. In previous discussions, we've noted how certain TCPA violators utilize counterclaims as a tactic to evade responsibility for their unsolicited calls.

Case Study: Navient's Response to TCPA Litigation

Navient, a student loan servicer, might not appear as a frequent TCPA offender at first glance. Yet from 2017 to 2019, a collective of lawyers targeted Navient with TCPA lawsuits, causing significant financial losses. In retaliation, Navient filed a lawsuit against these lawyers, debt-relief businesses, and marketers, alleging a RICO conspiracy. They claimed the defendants had "lured" numerous student borrowers into initiating sham lawsuits against Navient for TCPA violations.

A sham lawsuit is a fake legal case presented in court. These cases lack legitimate claims or justifiable reasons for suing. Essentially, it's akin to pretending to play a game without following the rules. Such lawsuits waste valuable time and resources, undermining the fairness of the legal system.

A misguided judge initially allowed the case to proceed to trial, resulting in a jury's favorable verdict for Navient. However, post-trial, the judge reassessed the situation and overturned the jury's decision. He eventually recognized that the only damages Navient requested at trial were solely due to the TCPA litigation. Navient subsequently appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which upheld the trial court's decision in Navient Solutions, LLC v. Jeff Lohman, 2025 WL 1299003 (4th Cir. 2025). The Fourth Circuit's opinion is rich with insights and rulings that could protect future TCPA plaintiffs from similar predicaments.

Accusations and Counterclaims

Navient's accusations against the RICO defendants echoed familiar sentiments I've heard from other TCPA defendants. They asserted there was a mail and wire fraud conspiracy aimed at holding TCPA defendants accountable for their unsolicited calls. These supposed conspiracies entailed TCPA plaintiff's attorneys coaching their clients on how to construct their cases. In the Navient litigation, once a case was crafted, the RICO defendants pursued Navient for TCPA violations—a common pattern we see in representation.

Valid legal claims should not expose plaintiffs or their counsel to harassment retaliation claims under the Noerr–Pennington doctrine. This doctrine protects individuals from antitrust liability for legitimate government petitions. However, it includes a "sham exception" for instances of bad faith where repetitive, unfounded claims exploit judicial processes.

The Noerr-Pennington doctrine grants antitrust immunity to private parties petitioning government entities for legislation or rulings. It protects collective lobbying efforts but offers no protection for petitions lacking legitimate purposes, designed solely to disrupt a competitor's operations.

The ruling in Navient presents a compelling argument against abusive RICO counterclaims. As the court articulated, [because] the TCPA litigation was not sham litigation, there was no legal foundation for awarding damages to Navient.

“A classic example of sham litigation involves filing frivolous objections against a competitor's license application. These objections are filed not with the intention of denying the license but rather to impose unnecessary expense and delay.”

Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the jury verdict against the RICO defendants, as they had not engaged in sham litigation. Their claims held plausibility. The RICO defendants possessed sufficient resources to mount a defense and ultimately emerged victorious. If the Fourth Circuit had ruled otherwise, it could have paved the way for unscrupulous businesses to lodge harmful counterclaims against consumers.

Protecting Yourself from Counterclaims

For individuals without deep financial resources, it is essential to approach litigation with counterclaim resistance in mind. The Fourth Circuit's decision serves as a valuable tool for TCPA plaintiffs defending against frivolous counterclaims. By navigating the legal landscape with care, plaintiffs can minimize the risk of drawn-out litigation battles and focus on recovering from unwanted calls.

If you have questions about telemarketing, debt collection, or bankruptcy issues that could inspire a blog post, reach out to us. We may even review your pro-se complaint or motion in a blog entry. Email peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com and we'll do our best to address your queries for the benefit of all!

Seeking Help Against Harassment

Are you facing harassment from telemarketers in Washington, Oregon, or Montana? My Washington State TCPA plaintiff law practice is here to assist you. Don't hesitate to call us at 206-800-6000 or email peter@nwdebtresolution.com.

The thoughts, opinions, and musings expressed in this blog are those of Peter Schneider, a consumer advocate and Washington State plaintiff's TCPA attorney at Northwest Debt Resolution, LLC. These reflections are not legal advice. For assistance with filing a lawsuit related to TCPA violations and unwanted calls, please contact me for a consultation.

Return to blog articles