Sometimes even a small win for a TCPA defendant likely feels like a great victory.

Take the case of Carr v. Credit Acceptance Corp. 2026 WL 297212 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2026).

There CAC is being sued in a TCPA class action alleging the use of prerecorded calls to contact consumers without consent. According to the complaint the calls were made looking for a person named Cornelius– and that gives me real Fight Club vibes.

Regardless wrong number prerecorded call TCPA class actions remain amongst the toughest cases to defend so when a defendant can extract anything in a motion to dismiss in these cases that has to feel pretty good.

In Carr CAC brought a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the class– good moves in this context. But it mostly lost.

CAC argued plaintiff had not alleged enough facts to demonstrate a prerecorded voice was used but the court found the scripted nature of the call combined with the claims that the plaintiff could tell it was not a live voice were sufficient to state a claim.

The motion to strike was denied because the class definition was not a failsafe and because consent could not be established at the pleadings stage across the class. No beef from me on these rulings– but, again, I understand where CAC was coming from.

But the court did throw out the willfulness allegations because nothing about the allegations demonstrated CAC was intentionally calling wrong numbers– and that makes sense in this context.

And its actually a pretty big win– it cuts the potential exposure in the case down to just 1/3 of what it would have otherwise been.

Then again it isn’t all good news because willfulness tends to be an individualized showing that defeats–rather than helps–class certification. Still, on balance I would take the W here.