So Brandon Callier was just deemed insufficient to represent TCPA class members– an that’s a huge deal for anyone who is facing Callier class litigation.

The case is Morales v. Sunpath, 2025 WL 2020053 (D. De. July 11, 2025). The reasoning is limited but the result impactful.

Here’s the key language:

Defendants raise several other arguments challenging Callier’s typicality and adequacy as a class representative, citing his criminal history, his failure to disclose the TCPA litigation in his bankruptcy proceeding, his consent to receive phone calls prior to the allegedly illegal calls, and his purchase of two VSCs in his ex-wife’s name without her knowledge. (D.I. 349 at 18-19; D.I. 350 at 17-18) When viewed collectively in conjunction with potential preclusion defenses, it is apparent that Callier is likely to be preoccupied with defenses unique to him and inapplicable to other members of the class.

Beautiful.

Although the Court refused to elaborate on these issues the finding here is strong enough–and broadly applicable enough– that it should spell the end of Callier’s career as a TCPA class representative (similar to what happened to Johansen a while back.)

Don’t get it twisted, however– the mere fact that Callier had brought many suits and feigned interest in the VSCs at issue was NOT what deprived him of standing. The Court also found:

• “The fact that Morales, Callier, and Horton feigned interest in buying a VSC does not render their claims atypical of the claims of other class members.”; and
• “[T]he fact that a class representative is a serial TCPA plaintiff is not enough, by itself, to render the class representative atypical or inadequate.”

Get it?

Callier’s additional antics– the criminal history, the allegedly buying stuff in other people’s names and his allegedly consenting to calls he later sued for– made him inadequate, not the fact he had filed a bunch of suits or feigned interest in the calls at issue.

Be sure to leverage this win properly so it doesn’t get watered down or set aside folks!

Regardless, the Morales case includes more good news for TCPA defendants. Class certification was also denied because of a key oversight in the class data sets. The Plaintiff did not link the data set to the class definitional requirement of phone calls:

[T]he StoneEagle File does not identify which potential class members were sold a VSC over the phone, which is another requirement to satisfy the class and subclass definitions. The StoneEagle File lists individuals who purchased a VSC, but it does not indicate whether those individuals received a call or whether they purchased a VSC without receiving a call.

Get it?

The Plaintiff used a data set of VSC purchasers as the predicate for class membership but did not demonstrate that the numbers on the data file actually received phone calls.

Pretty big oversight there, and no surprise– the court denied certification on that basis.

Lots of ways to win, if you keep your ear to the ground and look for these little nuances.