Hi TCPAWorld! Lei here with my first blog! And it’s regarding a huge ruling out of the Eastern District of Missouri yesterday, December 9, 2025, in Saggio & Furr v. Medicredit, Inc.—a putative TCPA class action. JASON SAGGIO & JUDE FURR, v. MEDICREDIT, INC., No. 4:22-CV-01005-JAR, 2025 WL 3525065 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 9, 2025). Medicredit moved to exclude the plaintiffs’ class notice expert, Carla Peak, arguing her opinions were irrelevant and unreliable.

The court disagreed.

In a sharply reasoned order, the judge denied Medicredit’s motion to exclude the opinion testimony of the plaintiffs’ class notice expert. And this ruling may clear the way for the plaintiffs’ class certification efforts.

Let’s break it down.

The plaintiffs allege Medicredit placed robocalls to wrong numbers—cellphones of individuals who did not owe a debt—in violation of the TCPA. The plaintiffs seek a nationwide class covering calls from September 2018 onward. To support this, they retained Peak, VP at Verita Global, to explain as to how notice would be effectuated if the class is certified.

Medicredit argued Peak was unqualified because she does not personally conduct data analytics. The Court rejected this argument. The court noted that Peak has 20+ years of notice experience and access to Verita’s data-analytic team. The judge further explained that ignoring the fact that executives rely on support staff ignores the “structural realities of the workplace.”

Medicredit further argued that reverse-lookup methodology is imprecise. The court disagreed, validating the specific process of providing wrong numbers to aggregators such as PacificEast, Nexxa, or LexisNexis. The court explained that Peak is not required to guarantee perfect accuracy and that a success rate of at least 70% is considered high and sufficient according to the Judges’ Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist published by the Federal Judicial Center.

The judge also found that Peak’s testimony is relevant to ascertainability and manageability based on accepted industry standards. Under the Eighth Circuit’s precedent in Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. Medtox Sci., Inc., call logs provide “objective criteria” to ascertain a class.

Thus, after explicitly applying Rule 702 standards (Testimony by Expert Witnesses), the court found Peak’s methodology admissible by a preponderance of the evidence.

If you are defending TCPA cases, take note: attacking notice experts on “ascertainability” grounds is a difficult argument in the Eighth Circuit.

Stay tuned. This one is not over.