SolidQuote flies the coop because the TCPA case was built wrong - let's do better
- Peter Schneider
- 6 days ago
- 5 min read
TCPA lawsuit Klassen v. Solidquote, 2025 WL 3516275 (D. Co. Nov. 19, 2025) demonstrates what happens when a TCPA case isn't built very well and it opens the door to a patron saint of telemarketing looking out for their own.
First, the background. Everything is taken from the court filings, I have no personal knowledge of any of this. My opinions on what I am reading are in blue.
In 2019, SolidQuote LLC started taking leads from Digital Media Solutions (DMS). Under their [wink wink nod nod] agreement DMS was only authorized to transfer customer-initiated, inbound calls to SolidQuote [but everyone involved knew what DMS was really hired to do]. DMS then hired an Insuracall who hired an HnM to generate the calls Insuracell could transfer to DMS who would then transfer them to SolidQuote. [As is standard in the telemarketing industry, each layer turned a blind eye to what the next layer was doing because federal judges often reward it.]
The person harmed by all this was a Ms. Klassen who started receiving calls similar to her own phone number [so probably spoofed] but she didn't answer one of them till several days later. The HnM agent spoke with her for five minutes, then transferred her to Insuracall who then transferred her to SolidQuote. Be it luck or wisdom, Ms. Klassen told the SolidQuote agent she had received a call, she had not dialed in. [Lesson #1 - it is good on these calls to inform the end Seller that you received a call, you didn't call in]
On these facts SolidQuote moved for summary judgment arguing that it wasn't liable for the calls initiated on its behalf which the court granted.
SolidQuote is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Do Not Call Claim because it is only liable for one call made to Plaintiff within a 12-month period. The FCC has repeatedly acknowledged that vicarious liability may be imposed under TCPA according to “federal common law principles of agency.” In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA of 1991, 10 FCC Rcd. 12391, 12397 (1995); In re Joint Petition Filed by Dish Network, LLC, 28 FCC Rcd. 6574, 6574 (2013). An agency relationship arises from one of the following forms of authority bestowed upon an agent by its principal: actual authority or apparent authority. Alfaro-Huitron v. Cervantes Agribusiness, 982 F.3d 1242, 1251 (10th Cir. 2020). Actual authority exists when “the agent reasonably believes, in accordance with the principal’s manifestations to the agent, that the principal wishes the agent so to act.” (quoting Restatement (Third) of Agency § 2.01). Apparent authority, in contrast, exists when a “third party reasonably believes the actor has authority to act on behalf of the principal and that belief is traceable to the principal's manifestations.” Restatement (Third) of Agency § 2.03. “Liability based upon apparent authority requires reliance by the third party dealing with the agent upon manifestations by the principal.” Master Commodities, Inc. v. Texas Cattle Mgmt. Co., 586 F.2d 1352, 1358 (10th Cir. 1978). SolidQuote did not have the requisite authority over HnM to be liable for the April 9 and 10 calls that Plaintiff infers were made by HnM on behalf of SolidQuote. There is no evidence that SolidQuote and HnM ever had any direct relationship or communication [this is why now much telemarketing is so layered - patron saints of telemarketing reward the layering with protecting the Seller from liability, and the Telemarketer is often sitting in Pakistan, and the people in the middle are often disposable entities designed to be wound down in the case of a lawsuit], and there is no evidence to support a claim that SolidQuote prescribed permissible acts for HnM to take. The parties do not dispute that SolidQuote did not even have direct dealings with Insuracall, DMS’s subcontractor that contracted with HnM. Because SolidQuote and HnM did not interact, HnM did not have any words or actions by SolidQuote on which to form a belief about what actions SolidQuote wanted it to take. Therefore, SolidQuote did not have actual authority over HnM. SolidQuote also did not have apparent authority over HnM for the April 9 and 10 calls. First, these calls went unanswered, so it is unclear if they were indeed from HnM. Plaintiff admits that she only “infers” these calls came from HnM [we all know that spoofed calling numbers with the same six calling numbers in the span of a a week are most likely from the same source but when you are dealing with a patron saint of telemarketing this is what you get with circumstantial evidence]. Second, there is no evidence that Plaintiff had any interaction with SolidQuote before April 13, 2020, meaning that SolidQuote could not have made any representation to Plaintiff that HnM was its agent at the time of the April 9 and 10 phone calls. However, SolidQuote did assert apparent authority over HnM and is vicariously liable for the April 13, 2020 call. From Plaintiff’s point of view, someone called her asking about her auto insurance needs, and she was transferred to SolidQuote. She informed SolidQuote’s representative that she had received a call, and SolidQuote’s representative proceeded to try to sell her insurance (D. 112-5). A reasonable person would understand this interaction as indicating that HnM was acting on behalf of SolidQuote when it called Plaintiff, and SolidQuote approved of HnM’s call. Therefore, SolidQuote exercised apparent authority over HnM by ratifying HnM’s action on its behalf. [Ms. Klassen's loss at least had this consolation prize - calls that are transferred to the Seller have the apparent authority of the Seller] Because SolidQuote is only vicariously responsible for one phone call made to Plaintiff during a 12-month period and 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) requires that an entity call an individual whose telephone number appears on the national Do Not Call Registry more than one time within any 12-month period, SolidQuote did not violate the TCPA, and its motion for summary judgment on this claim is granted.
Monday morning quarter backing is easy, but this case was flimsy and here is how Ms. Klassen could have beat them. At the end of the call where she was transferred to SolidQuote, she could have found a reason to not like what SolidQuote was selling and ended the call. Then written a DNC letter to SolidQuote and mailed it to them.
The shell game that is their strength is their weakness. SolidQuote didn't know HnM and HnM didn't know SolidQuote. A DNC request probably wasn't going to flow from SolidQuote to DMS to Insuracall to HnM, there were too many links in the chain, and Ms. Klassen could have and should have waited for HnM to call her again and transfer her to SolidQuote. Or someone else to call her again and transfer her to SolidQuote. Know their weakness (too many links in the chain) and keep your powder dry.
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.
Are telemarketers or debt collectors bothering you in Washington or Oregon? I handle debt and 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 constitute legal advice. If you're considering suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.
Comments