Speaking at the big TCPA Summit today and I am glad to have good news to report.

In Klassen v. Solidquote, 2025 WL 3516275 (D. Co. Nov. 19, 2025) Defendant Solidquote defeated a TCPA case arising out of calls by an affiliate from back in 2020.

This was a typical leadgen scenario. Solidquote was buying calls through a broker who was buying them from another broker who was buying them from lead generator HnM.

So HnM blind transferred calls to broker 1, who transferred to broker 2, who transferred to SolidQuote.

HnM allegedly made multiple illegal calls to Plaintiff but only one of those calls was ever transferred to SolidQuote.

Plaintiff sued alleging SolidQuote was liable for all of the calls at issue but the Court ruled for SolidQuote finding it could not be held vicariously liable for calls initiated by a third-party it was not in contractual privity with:

SolidQuote did not have the requisite authority over HnM to be liable for the April 9 and 10 calls that Plaintiff infers were made by HnM on behalf of SolidQuote. There is no evidence that SolidQuote and HnM ever had any direct relationship or communication, and there is no evidence to support a claim that SolidQuote prescribed permissible acts for HnM to take. The parties do not dispute that SolidQuote did not even have direct dealings with Insuracall, DMS’s subcontractor that contracted with HnM (D. 115 at 9 ¶ 12; D. 137 at 8 ¶ 12).

The court determined SolidQuote is liable for the one call that was transferred to it, however it takes two calls to violate the DNC– not one:

However, SolidQuote did assert apparent authority over HnM and is vicariously liable for the April 13, 2020 call. From Plaintiff’s point of view, someone called her asking about her auto insurance needs, and she was transferred to SolidQuote (D. 137 at 10 11 ¶ 5; D. 145 at 6 ¶ 5). She informed SolidQuote’s representative that she had received a call, and SolidQuote’s representative proceeded to try to sell her insurance (D. 112-5). A reasonable person would understand this interaction as indicating that HnM was acting on behalf of SolidQuote when it called Plaintiff, and SolidQuote approved of HnM’s call. Therefore, SolidQuote exercised apparent authority over HnM by ratifying HnM’s action on its behalf.

Since SolidQuote accepted only one call the case was tossed.

Awesome right?

Keep in mind that vicarious liability cases are somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Some courts would have come out differently here– but I think this is the right result since HnM was definitely not calling on SQ’s behalf but on its own behalf.

Al SQ did was buy a product being sold by HnM– a lead that could have been sold to anyone!

Also notice how the TCPA’s long statute of limitations plays in here– SolidQuote is fighting this case over FIVE AND A HALF YEARS after buying a transfer. There’s a long burn here guys. Be careful!