Always fascinating the arguments TCPA defendants make.

Consider Integrity Marketing’s effort in Newman v. Integrity, 2025 WL 358933 (N.D. Ill Jan. 31, 2025).

There Integrity argued it could not be liable for calls violating the TCPA made by its network of lead generators because it was just a middle man who was not actually licensed to sell insurance itself.

Huh?

Apparently Integrity believed that if it wasn’t selling anything itself it couldn’t be liable for telephone solicitations it was brokering. (This is similar to the argument Quote Wizard made and, yeah, it didn’t work out so well for them.)

Integrity also argued that it couldn’t be sued directly for calls made by third-parties unless the Plaintiff pierced the corporate veil.

Double huh?

That’s not even close to accurate. Vicarious liability principles apply when dealing with fault for third-party conduct, not corporate formality law. That argument doesn’t even make logical sense.

Regardless, the Court had little trouble determining Integrity was potentially liable for the calls.

On the corporate veil argument the Court quickly rejected the (totally wrong) alter ego approach and properly applied agency law. The Court determined the Complaint’s allegations Integrity hired a mob of of affiliates, insurance agents, and (sub)vendors to telemarket insurance and other products to consumers was sufficient to state a claim since Integrity allegedly “controlled” these entities. In the Court’s eye the ability to “dictate which telemarketing or lead-generating vendors may be used” was particularly damning.

On the “we don’t actually sell insurance” argument the Court rejected the Defendant’s declaration– you can’t submit evidence on a 12(b)(6) motion folks– but found that even if the evidence were accepted Integrity would still lose:

 However, even if the Court were to take the declaration into account, it does not refute the inferences drawn that Defendant has a network of agents encouraging the purchase of insurance, that Defendant controls or facilitates the telemarketing calls Plaintiff received which encouraged Plaintiff to purchase insurance, or that the telemarketing calls were done on behalf of Defendant. In other words, even if it is not selling insurance directly, the complaint plausibly alleges Defendant is using its network of subsidiaries and agents to engage in telemarketing and to facilitate and control the purchase of insurance using impermissible means. 

So, yeah.

Motion to dismiss denied. Integrity stuck in the case.