/>iFor those eager for proof TCPA litigators invent cases to make a buck, boy do I have a case for you.
In Human v. Fisher Investments, 2025 WL 2614039 (E.D. Miss Sept. 10, 2025) the Court called out repeat TCPA-litigator Daniel Human’s “egregious misconduct” and allowed a fraud claim against him to go forward.
Really interesting ruling here.
First, the court noted Human disposed of computer—”the key piece of evidence in this matter”—hours before a forensic exam was set to go forward. Crazy.
The Court called this “egregious misconduct” and determined Fisher was entitled to an “adverse inference”–meaning the fact finder could assume damaging evidence was on that computer. (I wonder what it was.)
At deposition Human apparently invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination dozens of times when questioned about the fraud Fischer alleges. Pretty telling. And, again, the court said an “adverse inference” as to his testimony would be permitted.
But my favorite part was the outcome of the forensic review of Human’s cellular phone. This review revealed receipt of “text messages addressed to at least a dozen different
names” and contained “hardly any text messages addressed to” Human.
Nuts right?
The guy’s phone was essentially being used to set up TCPA lawsuits. As the Court said:
“[t]his perfectly fits Fisher’s allegation that Human, or someone acting at his request, provides his contact information, along with a fake name, to entities to solicit calls from them, which then appear to be unsolicited by Human himself. Even the sheer number of civil actions Human has filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act suggests fraud. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2) (providing prior crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admissible for proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident). Human filed over sixty-five TCPA actions in a one-year period. See In re: Daniel A. Human, 4:25-bk-41618, ECF No. 1 at 34–41 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Apr. 29, 2025) (listing cases). The idea that Human received unsolicited phone calls from so many legitimate entities in violation of the TCPA “taxes the credulity of the credulous.” Cf. Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 466 (2013) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Just beautiful.
Pretty clear lesson here for TCPA defendants:
- Get the repeat litigator’s phone;
- Review their text messages;
- Sue them for fraud if they are misbehaving.
Really nice work by Fisher here. Hope they keep this guy’s feet to the fire.
