As everyone knows, the Czar is a big fan of holding lead sellers to account when they get a lead buyer in trouble under the TCPA.

Indeed, folks sometimes marvel at how hard I push the lead generation industry to improve– forgetting, at times, that most of the Czar’s clients are lead buyers. So obviously I want (need) a good  clean lead ecosystem.

And when a lead buyer does sell a bad lead, I love seeing the lead seller push the indemnity provision and seek to hold the seller liable. Indeed, it is CRITICAL that there be consequences for bad lead sales, otherwise there is no incentive for a lead seller to behave themselves. (And THIS is also why the R.E.A.C.H. standards impose penalties on lead sellers that violate the rules!)

So a while back Final Expense Direct was allegedly caught up in a TCPA suit due to a lead sold by Python Leads, LLC. 

Apparently the Python leads lead to three TCPA lawsuits costing FED over $100,000 to settle the claims against it. FED demanded indemnity but, apparently, Python refused to pay up. So FED sued for breach of contract, breach of implied-in fact contract, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, and violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”).

But Python–that slippery snake–got away.

In FED v. Python, 2023 WL 5599000 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2023) the Court dismissed Defendants finding no persona jurisdiction over them in Texas. So FED is going to have to sue them again somewhere else, or give up.

Let’s hope they don’t give up.

Will keep an eye on this