This "win" shows how consumers are losing
- Peter Schneider
- 17 minutes ago
- 5 min read
Here is a pattern we see again and again - consumer gets unwanted calls. Consumer sues telemarketer. Telemarketer claims someone went online and asked for calls. Ok they don't claim someone did it, they claim the consumer did it, and they want to compel the case to arbitration.
Such is the case in Lowell v. Angi Inc., No. C25-1702-KKE, 2026 LX 273019 (W.D. Wash. May 13, 2026) where Mr. Lowell received allegedly unwanted text messages from Angi Inc.
Lowell alleges that, between 2019 and 2025, he received dozens of unwanted commercial solicitations via text and phone from Angi or its Pros despite having placed his phone number on the national do-not-call registry.
Along with its motion to compel arbitration, Angi filed a declaration by Joseph Puccio, Angi's Senior Vice President of Product Management. Puccio states that, according to Angi's records, Lowell visited angi.com several times and made service requests, thereby accepting Angi's terms, which include an arbitration clause. Attached to his declaration are printouts of the service requests, which list Lowell's name, email address, physical address, and phone number, as well as descriptions of the requested tasks, such as repairing asphalt, painting, repairing a gas furnace, and replacing siding.
Its trivially easy to get someone's name, email address, physical address, and phone number, and there are rooms of people in India and Pakistan who enter that information into websites to create fake opt ins.
Mr. Lowell is going to win this motion, for now, but look at all he has going for him yet the judge is going to force Mr. Lowell to win not one but two trials now, and from the tone of the judge, the court is against Mr. Lowell.
But first, what does Mr. Lowell have going for him?
Lowell submitted his own declaration in response to Angi's motion, disputing that he has ever used Angi's services or consented to its terms. Dkt. No. 28. According to Lowell, he has never used Angi's List, downloaded Angi's mobile app, or used Angi's [*6] website to submit a service request. In fact, he does not recall ever visiting Angi's website. Lowell specifically contends he did not submit any of the dozen service requests attached to Puccio's declaration. And he attaches records to his declaration that he claims show he was engaged in other activities when many of the services were requested. Lowell's sworn declaration unequivocally disclaims having submitted each of the twelve service requests, contends he "was not seeking anyone to perform the services described in the requests" on the relevant dates, and presents specific facts and evidence to support his contention. For instance, Lowell disputes that he submitted service requests for repairs to a gas furnace or for landscaping, explaining he does not own a gas furnace and does not live at, or know anyone who lives at, the address associated with the landscaping request. He also submits a screenshot of his email inbox from one of the relevant time periods and claims he was "engaged in a series of nonstop emails and back-to-back phone calls with attorneys and experts about a friend's wrongful death suit" when one of the service requests was made. And he claims he was driving in traffic or at a coffee shop at the time of two other requests that he sent a business email at the exact time another request was submitted and that he was told by Pros they had received service requests from an Apple device even though he does not own an Apple device.
Here is where Mr. Lowell is lucky. First, there apparently were a bunch of "opt ins". This is always on the consumers side because the liars I mean telemarketer has to get all the instances of faking done right and every new fake opt in is a chance to get it wrong, like here: Angi received requests from an Apple device and Mr. Lowell doesn't own an Apple device. Angi received gas furnace service requests and Mr. Lowell didn't have a gas furnace.
With all that going for him, Mr. Lowell has one more thing going for him, in Washington State he can recover his attorney fees so Mr. Troutman's favorite's tactic, litigate in a way that causes the Plaintiff to keep filing motion after motion (that Mr. Troutman gets paid for but the Plaintiff usually doesn't) will fly back in Mr. Troutman's face. Well except look here:
Because the parties genuinely dispute whether Lowell submitted the requests and thereby assented to the arbitration agreement, the Court will deny Angi's motion and direct the parties to proceed with discovery into whether they ever formed a binding agreement. Upon completing this limited discovery, Angi may renew its motion to compel or, if necessary, the parties may proceed to a jury trial on the issue of arbitrability.
By creating a fake opt in with arbitration, Angi now gets two bites at the apple and if Angi wins either of them, Mr. Lowell loses. And this case is an extreme example of many opt ins for specific services. This is about the most favorable situation for the consumer that will happen. Imagine in the more common auto insurance space. Most people have a car so the gas furnace mismatch and the landscaping address mismatch won't typically happen. And how is the telemarketing industry responding to the Apple device failure? In our last fake opt in case, the Telemarketer (supposedly) didn't capture the device type or screen resolution.
This is how the telemarketing industry will deal with fake opt ins, they won't capture information with a high probably of tripping up their fake opt ins. They will just go to court with generic easy to get fake information and many judges will fall all over themselves to rule against consumers.
So imagine the world where the telemarketer had Mr. Lowell's name, email address, physical address, and phone number, but he can't push back with the Apple device and gas furnace mismatch. Does he win this motion? Even if he does, does he win the first trial which all that does is allow him to try to win the second trial.
It may not be an official partnership, but telemarketers are working hand in hand with their patron saints to strip consumers of the ability to address illegal telemarketing. What's happening here in the Lowell case will become the norm in your state if you don't convince your state legislatures to at least award attorney fees to telemarketing cases.
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.