Reprise Financial is getting spanked because telemarketers won't double opt in
- Peter Schneider
- Mar 24
- 7 min read
Updated: Apr 25
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.
Q. Why did you enter a number that wasn't yours?
A. I didn't want to receive spam calls to my phone number. I was just hoping for email response and it wouldn't let me proceed without entering a phone number.
Q. I'm sorry, let's back up. You do recall entering 541-999-9999 and hitting continue; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you wanted to be contacted about your loan possibilities; is that true?
A. By email, yes.
Telemarketers created this lawsuit by forcing Brian to enter a phone number when he didn't want calls, and had those telemarketers used a double opt in, Mr. Wilson would not have gotten their unwanted calls either. So Reprise Financial started texting the wrong guy, Mr. Wilson, 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 your application and review next steps.
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.
That said, Mr. Wilson could use a primer on keeping his evidence to himself and off of Facebook. And courts can take a dim view of plaintiffs with such pervasive memory issues if they "remember" important things and forget things not helpful to their case.
Q. Yeah. How much have you received in settlement cases on TCPA cases? . . .
A. I am not certain to an accurate number, so
Q. Sir, this is a post you made on your Chet Tank Wilson Facebook account on -- I need my glasses – on December 10th, 2024, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And on that day you said you had ‘36 class action lawsuits so far, and this is my first offer.’ Correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much was the offer?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Did you settle it?
A. I don't recall.
Q. What case was it?
A. I don't recall.
Q. You don't remember the very first time you got a settlement offer, you can't tell me what case it was in?
A. I don't know.
Q. I mean, you're a professional. You have 70 of these. You don't remember which one?
A. That's why I don't. . . .
Q. Too many to keep track of, right, sir?
A. Accurately, yes, without looking at documents.
Q. Because as you said right there, ‘I sign several new claims each week so looks like my phone number is gonna be another line of steady income for me,’ exclamation point. Correct, sir?
A. That’s what I wrote.
Q. So these lawsuits including the lawsuit against Reprise under the TCPA are a line of steady income for you, correct, sir?
A. Yes, that's what I wrote.
Q. You also generate income from settling TCPA cases, right?
A. If that's considered an income, I guess, yes.
Q. Okay. You -- you have money come in to you by selling assets and settling TCPA cases, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Anything else?
A. No, sir.
Q. What if anything is your current job?
A. I do not have a current job. I have an online health food, health store. But that's more education than anything else, so I just -- I like sharing stuff with people, it's not about monetary.
Q. When is the last time you were employed?”
A. I had -- I owned a moving company that I ended up dissolving around 2020.
Q. What was the name of the moving company?
A. It's called Barter Movers.
Q. And how long were you affiliated with Barter Movers?
A. I had -- it was about, I'd say about five years.
Q. Why did you dissolve it?
A. For one, the COVID thing messed up a lot of my work. And multiple injuries, it was hard for me to do that hard of manual labor so I got rid of my equipment.
Q. And are you able to earn any money from that online health store?
A. I’ve say - - maybe made, I’ve made under a hundred dollars probably for the whole time. . . .
Q. Do you have any income besides selling assets?
A. No, sir.
Q. When is the last time you had an income, other than from selling off assets?
A. The moving company.”
As usual this line of attack didn't work. From the Court's opinion:
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.").
Something unusual compared to the typical TCPA case, Mr. Wilson wasn't randomly assigned the phone number:
Plaintiff purchased the telephone number at issue (Plaintiff acquired the telephone number in exchange for Plaintiff forgiving a $1000 debt on the purchase of his car and relinquishing title to the owner of the telephone number) in 2018 or 2019 . . . Plaintiff once apparently turned down $20,000 for his telephone number, but posted he was willing to consider higher offers.
I don't know the first year Mr. Wilson ever filed a TCPA lawsuit but in 2024 apparently he posted on Facebook:
I sign several new claims each week so it looks like my phone number is gonna be another line of steady income for me! I’m amazed at how the universe blesses me. My friend called me a magnet the other day. Manifesting is real AF! We are far more powerful than we acknowledge. Our energy we put paves the path in front of us. Only good! Bless you all.
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 kinda 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) for Mr. Wilson.
The Opinion was so ugly I had to go pull Reprise's motion to see if it was them or just an unfriendly judge and the motion starts out ugly:
Chet Wilson (“Plaintiff” or “Wilson”) is a professional Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) plaintiff—he has filed approximately seventy such cases over the last year . . . Plaintiff has chosen to keep his telephone number despite receiving dozens of allegedly unwanted text messages daily for six years. It is clear that Plaintiff has done so because of the substantial income that we brags he is receiving for his now approximately seventy TCPA lawsuits.
Mr. Wilson, please bring your action to the Western District of Washington and teach our local judges just what havoc telemarketers can bring. This colloquy is hilarious:
Q. Did you reply ‘Stop’ to Reprise's text messages?
A. No, sir, I did not.”)
Q. . . . So when you received those text messages you knew they weren't intended for you, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you didn't respond ‘Stop,’ correct?
A. Like I said, I believed it was click bait.
Q. It was yes or no. Did you or did you not respond with ‘Stop’?
A. I did not respond with ‘Stop.’
Q. Did you respond saying, Hey, you got the wrong person?
A. There was no response.
I included the Sapan opinion for your enjoyment.
*** Update
Telemarketers are a strange bunch. When this argument [Wilson wants the calls so the TCPA doesn't apply to him] didn't work for Reprise, Nissan tried it and got the same result. Wilson v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 3:25-cv-01042, 2026 LX 184580 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 21, 2026)
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