Reprise Financial is getting spanked because telemarketers won't double opt in
- Peter Schneider
- 12 minutes ago
- 3 min read
Reprise Financial must be steaming mad as their motion for summary judgment was denied on the claim they really wanted in Wilson v. Skopos Fin., LLC, No. 6:25-cv-00376-MC, 2026 LX 167521 (D. Or. Mar. 24, 2026).
Where did things for Reprise Financial go wrong? Well a Brian - and with no connection to the plaintiff - went on a website to determine his eligibility for a loan to consolidate his debt. But Brian didn't want to get pestered with calls about debt consolidation, so he put in someone else's number at random. What ended up being Mr. Wilson's phone number. Because telemarketers don't do double opt ins (and forced Brian to enter a phone number. All he wanted was information, not phone harassment, but LendingTree apparently didn't have a no-phone harassment option so demanding a phone number) Reprise Financial started texting this number with messages like
BRIAN, this is Julie from Reprise Financial. We received your loan request through LendingTree. Please log in at RepriseFinancial.com to complete . . .
Mr. Wilson sued Reprise Financial and Reprise Financial tried to wiggle out with two arguments.
Argument #1 - Mr. Wilson wasn't injured.
Reprise Financial tried a common argument that never works and it goes like this: Unwanted phone calls are worth money → TCPA plaintiffs want money → TCPA plaintiffs weren't injured by the unwanted phone calls.
Defendant also contends that Plaintiff "makes a primary income" from TCPA cases and lacks standing as "a professional TCPA plaintiff." While the record suggests that Plaintiff is an inveterate TCPA litigant, Defendant has not offered support for the proposition that he is without standing on that basis. Sapan v. Yelp, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-03240-JD, 2021 WL 5302908, (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021) (noting "professional litigant" criticisms against named plaintiffs are "not uncommon" and "rarely well taken.").
Argument #2 - The text messages weren't solicitations
A lot of judges hate the TCPA and consumers and Reprise Financial tried an argument that succeeds in some courts. The argument goes like this. Some consumer (Brian) started a 'transaction'. Those calls go to a wrong person (Mr. Wilson) and the court decides that 'transaction' calls aren't solicitations.
This judge really wanted to buy into this argument.
As Plaintiff did not consent to receiving messages from Defendant, the next question is whether Defendant sent the messages "for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services." . . . a fact-finder could reasonably conclude that Defendant purchased Brian's information from LendingTree and sent the messages to encourage him to take out a loan with Reprise.
Um, duh? A message that says received your loan request through LendingTree. Please log in at RepriseFinancial.com to complete [your loan application] was sent to encourage a loan with Reprise. But the judge tried to make seem like there was a legitimate debate on the issue.
Reprise Financial did win one issue, the court found that Mr. Wilson didn't have evidence that the violation was willful because someone (Brian) entered Mr. Wilson's phone number into LendingTree's website. Hard to say this wasn't a fair outcome on this issue.
And they kind of won a second issue:
The unique factual situation surrounding the text messages that Defendant sent to Plaintiff's phone number warrants further discussion if Plaintiff seeks class certification.
This might be a $2000 case (4 x $500) case for Mr. Wilson.
I included the Sapan opinion for your enjoyment.
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.
Comments