Freedom Forever LLC picks another fight with Anton Ewing?
- Peter Schneider
- Sep 20
- 4 min read
Updated: Oct 9
Anton Ewing and Freedom Forever LLC have a long history of contentious litigation including at least one countersuit from Freedom Forever. There was a period of time earlier this year that all the litigation between them seemed over.
Given that Freedom Forever's mission is installing solar panels, not fighting with TCPA plaintiffs, I would have thought that Freedom Forever would have put Mr. Ewing's phone number on their do-not-call list and moved on (since not making unwanted telemarketing calls doesn't seem to be an option for many companies).
According to Mr. Ewing's lawsuit filed on April 17, 2025, that isn't what happened. He says he got six calls/texts to his personal cell number in February of this year.
The pre-recorded voice message at the beginning of each telephone solicitation call from Defendant (not a 3rd party or agent) stated: “Are your electric bills too high. Do you want to go solar and never pay another utility| bill ever again? Press one to be connected to one of our solar experts” or similar words to that affect. The TCPA does not require a plaintiff to be able to memorize and regurgitate every word that every telemarketer states.
This lawsuit looks to be as contentious as those that went before, with Freedom Forever filing a motion to strike that is destined to fail.
Freedom Forever went after Mr. Ewing's "autodialing" and "ATDS" claims.
Ewing makes several allegations concerning purported ‘autodialing,” which he then equates to use of an ATDS . . . The problem for Ewing is that “autodialing” does not equate to “ATDS,” and Ewing’s effort to equate those two concepts is improper . . . Accordingly, confusing allegations concerning an “auto-dialer” are irrelevant to the issues in the case and should be stricken.
If Freedom Solar had a winning argument here, a motion to dismiss would be the right tool. TCPA defendants can't just strike out words in a complaint they don't like. Motions to strike are generally disfavored and are not granted unless it is clear that the matter sought to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation” Reddy v. Morrissey, Case No. 3:18-cv-00938-YY, 2 (D. Or. Sep. 17, 2018).
Freedom Forever didn't like Mr. Ewing's spoofing allegations.
Ewing alleges that Freedom Forever “use[s] a fake name and will spoof a fake number in order to evade TCPA lawsuits.” There is, however, no cause of action under the TCPA for alleged “spoofing.” See, e.g., Dobronski v. Selectquote Ins. Servs., 462 F. Supp. 3d 784, 790 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (ruling that “[a]bsent any authoritative basis for a private cause of action for ‘spoofing’ under this federal communications regulation, the Court is disinclined to create one here”)
Same as above, TCPA defendants can't strike out all allegations that are not immediately linked to a cause of action.
Freedom Forever's most laughable motion to strike is on some YouTube videos:
Paragraphs 7 and 8 purport to cite a YouTube video that, Ewing dubiously claims, is a “confession by Freedom Forever that they called Plaintiff with an ATDS.” Then, Paragraph 22 purports to cite a YouTube video wherein Freedom Forever allegedly “confesses that all of their workers are W-2 employees.” Yet, there is nothing in the Complaint to actually substantiate those allegations or that allows confirmation of them. The alleged YouTube videos are not linked to enable viewing; nor is there a transcription of what supposedly was said in the alleged videos. Consequently, such “allegations” are not properly pleaded and should, therefore, be stricken; if not stricken, then Plaintiff should be required to supply a more definite statement on the alleged YouTube videos.
This motion to strike isn't going anywhere at all. Plaintiffs' are not required to provide a transcript of YouTube videos, and the Complaint doesn't have to prove the allegations within, or explain how the allegations can be confirmed.
Woosender contends that Plaintiff "provides no factual support for its bare assertion that Defendant Woosender used an automated system." Even if true, without more, this is not sufficient to strike an allegation. See, e.g., Beltran v. InterExchange, Inc., No. 14-cv-03074-CMA-KMT, 2015 WL 7253286 (D. Colo. Nov. 16, 2015) (denying a motion to strike where "no prejudice has been shown against the defendants merely by the inclusion of factual allegations in the Complaint" as those allegations "must ultimately be proved or disproved after the discovery period"); Sierra Club v. Tri-State Generation &Transmission Ass'n, Inc., 173 F.R.D. 275, 285 (D. Colo. 1997) ("Even where the challenged allegations fall within the categories set forth in [Rule 12(f)], a party must usually make a showing of prejudice before the court will grant a motion to strike."); see also United States ex rel. Schroeder v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 17-2060-DDC-BGS, 2024 WL 1095664, (D. Kan. Mar. 13, 2024) ("[A] rule 12(f) motion is not the appropriate method to challenge the factual support for an allegation."). Moreover, Plaintiff is not required to put up evidence in support of every allegation at the pleading stage. See Cochran v. City of Wichita, 771 F. App'x 466, 469 n.3 (10th Cir. 2019) ("In a complaint[,] the plaintiff need not present evidence, but he or she must plead facts and cannot rely on conclusory allegations.") (citing Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1252 (10th Cir. 2006)). In light of its failure to explain how Paragraph 38 meets any of the bases for striking an allegation under Rule 12(f), Woosender's request to strike is DENIED.
It is just a mindless motion intended to enrich the lawyer to authored it. This should be an interesting court battle to watch!
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.
Comments