The Case of Faucett v. Move, Inc.: A TCPA Nightmare
- Peter Schneider
- Dec 25, 2025
- 6 min read
Updated: Jan 7
Understanding the TCPA and Its Implications
Have you ever had a plaintiff from hell? One who somehow convinced the likes of Scott Edelsberg and Chris Gold, along with five other attorneys, to represent him in a case that left them all asking what the hell? That case is Faucett v. Move, Inc., No. № 2:22-cv-04948-ODW (ASx), 2025 LX 555607 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2025). While I have no personal knowledge of the case, everything I write is based on the opinions and is assumed to be true for the purposes of this story.
Most folks probably don't recognize the defendant, Move.com, but you might have heard of one of their websites, Realtor.com. This website competes with Zillow, and Move.com promotes it by purchasing leads from 500 other websites and telemarketing those leads.
The Background of the Case
In 2022, Mr. Faucett visited three websites: MyHouseDeals.com, HUDHomesUSA.org, and Propertyshark.com. He provided his contact information using three different email addresses and two different names. The websites delivered Faucett's information to Move as three separate "leads" because he used different names and email addresses.
This by itself does not kill a case; consent to receive calls can be revoked. However, anyone taking the case should be looking for a clear revocation. The court found that all three websites disclosed that automated calls would result from a web form submission. Unsurprisingly, Move.com began telemarketing Mr. Faucett.
The Initial Contact
Move first contacted Faucett in response to his inquiry on MyHouseDeals. During the conversation, Move's agent asked Faucett if he was "still interested" in connecting with "an investor-friendly agent." Faucett replied, "yes," before abruptly ending the call because he was "smoking some weed." Move made several other attempts to follow up on this lead before eventually discontinuing its attempts.
On April 30, 2022, Move contacted Faucett again in response to his inquiry on Propertyshark. This time, Faucett answered and confirmed that he had placed an inquiry about a property in Louisiana. After a lengthy discussion, Move connected Faucett with a real estate agent, who later provided him with an in-person tour of the property. Faucett would later testify that he was "stringing [the real estate agent] along" because she was "very hot."
On the same day, Move contacted Faucett regarding his inquiry on HUDHomes. He did not respond initially, but when Move attempted to contact him again on May 10, 2022, he replied, "This is not a good time to call me. I'm at a funeral. If you can call me back tomorrow around 12, that would be great." Move's agent confirmed they would call him back at that time, to which Faucett replied, "Thank you so much."
Legal Proceedings and Challenges
This case survived a motion to dismiss:
And an appeal to the Ninth Circuit on a motion to compel arbitration:
Mr. Faucett claims he twice asked them to stop calling, but the court's wording suggests this is a he said-she said situation. There appears to be no recording or email documenting the first Do Not Call (DNC) request. However, Move.com does not contest the June 4 DNC request.
Faucett claims he made a "clear opt-out request" around May 4, 2022. He also alleges that Move sent prerecorded voice messages on five more occasions. Unfortunately, Faucett does not provide any affidavit or documentary evidence to support this claim. Move, on the other hand, provides evidence that on June 4, 2022, they called Faucett twice to follow up on his HUDHomes lead. On the second call, Faucett picked up and immediately said, "[p]lease stop calling me." (McGrath Decl. Ex. P. ("June 4 Call Tr.")
About a month and a half after this June 4 call, he filed this lawsuit. The most recent order involved his motion to certify the class. The facts recited by the judge are so inflammatory that I had to pull the motion just to see if I was missing something:
The Arguments and Evidence
Mr. Faucett argues that the website consents didn't mention prerecorded calls and that the website consents didn't name Move.com. He also claims he sent a written DNC letter on May 11, 2022, at which point Move.com would have had 30 days to act on it. An expert hired by Mr. Faucett showed that Move.com called other people after they had made a DNC request, but the motion didn't specify how many calls or how many days after. In Mr. Faucett's case, there was a June 6 call and then a July 20 call.
The problem for Mr. Faucett is that he went on these websites and asked for calls. He may not have intended for them to be prerecorded or from Move.com, but judges are loath to split hairs like that. When judges have it out for a party, they often make bad law in the process.
On the issue of consent for Move.com, Faucett argues that individualized inquiries will not predominate because Move's consents "all fail to satisfy the TCPA." He claims they do not seek consent from consumers to specifically receive either prerecorded calls or calls from Move. This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, it ignores the law. The Ninth Circuit has expressly found that "it does not matter" if the caller was not the one identified in the plaintiff's consent. This ruling twists the interpretation of consent in a way that could have far-reaching implications. Second, Faucett's argument is unpersuasive because it ignores the evidence. Two of the three websites that Faucett visited—MyHouseDeals and Propertyshark—contain language indicating that the consumer agrees to receive prerecorded calls. While the third website, HUDHomes, did not have specific "prerecorded" calls language, Faucett provides no evidence that HUDHomes used prerecorded voices to contact consumers. Thus, his argument that the consents are all legally defective is weak.
The Judge's Findings
The judge continues to light him up:
For example, during the April 26, 2022 call, Faucett confirmed that he had submitted an inquiry on MyHouseDeals looking to be "connect[ed] with an investor-friendly agent." Moreover, during the May 10, 2022 call, allegedly after Faucett had opted out, he asked a Move caller to "call [him] back tomorrow around 12."
With the hottest flames yet to come:
The Court finds that Faucett's credibility presents an additional issue unique to Faucett that is likely to preoccupy the litigation. Courts have found that credibility destroys typicality in unique situations where it is predictable that a major focus of the litigation will be on the named plaintiff's credibility.
Evidence supports that Faucett filled out online forms for ulterior motives and is an untruthful witness. For example, although Faucett previously told Move that he had an interest in flipping houses, he later testified that he not only made up his interest in real estate investing but also did not know what flipping houses even meant.
The Deposition Testimony
Faucett's deposition testimony is rife with further examples of him crudely testifying about interactions with the real estate agent.
Q. What does "ready to flip" mean?
A. I have no clue.
Q. You don't know what it means?
A. No.
Q. It doesn't mean flipping houses?
A. I'm not sure what that meant at that time. I just know it was giving [the real estate agent] a BS story to keep her around because she is very hot. They call her the Deals in Heels. And I don't get talked to by pretty women like that.
Moreover, Faucett's deposition testimony paints him as a forgetful, if not recalcitrant, witness:
Q. Did you ever visit a website called hudhomeusa.org?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Are you denying that you did it?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Did you ever visit a website called propertyshark.com?
A. I don't even remember. I've never heard of them.
Q. Do you deny doing that?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Did you ever visit a website called myhousedeals.com?
A. I don't remember.
Conclusion: Lessons Learned
This federal judge denied the motion to certify the class and, while doing so, essentially told Move.com to file a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the rest of the case. The plaintiff, Mr. Faucett, may have inadvertently harmed his own case and, at some level, the lawyers may have (or may not have) given him bad advice.
Mr. Faucett should not have filed the case. When the bad facts became known, he should have settled for a few bucks or agreed to mutually dismiss the case. After this giant waste of time, he is more or less done as a TCPA plaintiff now.
TCPA plaintiffs need to take coaching from their attorneys on building cases. At the same time, TCPA attorneys must provide guidance to avoid bad cases and build strong ones.
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