Hey TCPAWorld!

Those of you wise enough to follow the Czar will remember a blog about Federal Savings Bank being sued for $3.3 billion. Here’s the blog to refresh your memory: NEEDLE DEE: Major Bank Faces $3.3BB in TCPA Damages in Certified Class Action After Marketer Calls Bad Lead – TCPAWorld. So where does Anthony v. Federal Savings Bank, et al, 2025 WL 2712172 (N.D. Ill Sept. 23, 2025) stand today?

In Anthony, the Court certified a nationwide class action against Federal Savings Bank, its corporate parent, and the marketer– FDE Marketing Group, LLC– (“Defendants”) that placed the calls. The data produced demonstrates 2,294,457 call recipients.

Since Certification, Defendants filed a Motion for reconsideration, where they argue that recently discovered evidence withheld from the Court in violation of Rule 26(e) establishes that certification is improper and the expert’s testimony and opinions which rely upon the data must be excluded.

The Court denied the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration. It held that reconsideration is not a vehicle for rearguing positions or raising arguments that could have been made earlier, and concluded that Defendants’ renewed attack on the Plaintiff’s expert came too late. Although the court acknowledged Defendants may continue to challenge the expert’s opinions at the merits stage, it declined to revisit certification now and left those disputes to be addressed as the case moves forward.

On November 10, 2025, the Defendants filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). The appeal argues that the Court improperly certified the class by abandoning the analysis required by Rule 23 and Daubert. They further argue that the Court certified the class based on expert methodologies it acknowledged were critical to certification but refused to determine whether they were reliable, directly contradicting Seventh Circuit precedent requiring Daubert scrutiny before relying on expert opinions at class certification. According to the Defendants, the Court’s reliance on an overbroad reading of Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015), lead to the treatment of ascertainability concerns as irrelevant and thereby ignored highly individualized issues central to predominance. The result was class certification exposing the Defendants to massive settlement pressures as they face billions in potential liability.

“The consequences are extraordinary. A $3,000 TCPA claim over third-party marketing activity has been transformed into a $17-billion class action that could jeopardize a federally insured bank.”

Petition for Permission to Appeal, Dkt No. 193, at 3.

One point the petition leaves unexplained is how Defendants arrive at the $17 billion figure. Defendants claim that “[a]t the TCPA’s $500 minimum statutory penalty per call, potential exposure exceeds $17 billion.” Id. at 19. At 2.3 million call recipients, that’s roughly 15 calls in violation/recipient under the minimum penalty. However, “plaintiff’s claim involves only $3,000-$9,000 in potential liability” or six calls. Id. Curious.

Regardless, the figures themselves underscore the extraordinary stakes of TCPA litigation—where a $3,000 individual claim can quickly turn into $17 billion. Kudos if that’s a hit your business can afford. For others, give Troutman Amin a call so we can get you in compliance.