A recent decision out of the Eastern District of Virginia, Matthews v. Senior Life Ins. Co., provides a helpful reminder that TCPA complaints do not satisfy Rule 8’s pleading standard if they do not plausibly link the defendant to the making of the calls or texts at issue — even if there is no dispute that the calls concerned the defendant’s goods or services. No. 24-1550, 2025 WL 1181789 (E.D. Va. Apr. 22, 2025).
In Matthews, the plaintiff allegedly received three scripted telemarketing calls asking qualifying questions about life insurance offered by the defendant, Senior Life Insurance Company (SLIC). Id. at *1. The plaintiff alleged that the questions were the same each time and, during one of those calls, he was connected to and then spoke with an SLIC employee. Id.
SLIC moved to dismiss, challenging the plaintiff’s standing under Rule 12(b)(1) and the complaint’s adequacy under Rule 12(b)(6) grounds. Id. The court rejected SLIC’s standing argument, finding that the factual challenge to the traceability and redressability elements of constitutional standing could not be adjudicated in this case without the benefit of discovery. Id. at *2–3. But it accepted SLIC’s pleading challenge, finding that the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged any basis for imposing direct or vicarious liability.
As for direct liability, SLIC argued that the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that SLIC had “initiated” (i.e., made) any of the calls. Id. at 3. The court agreed, finding that a caller is not necessarily the entity whose goods or services are being marketed. The fact that the caller asked questions about SLIC’s insurance is not, the court concluded, in and of itself “sufficient to identify SLIC as the caller.” Id. (emphasis added). The court also noted that the plaintiff had not alleged facts that would link the caller’s number to SLIC. Id. Finally, the court was unpersuaded by the fact that the plaintiff allegedly spoke with an SLIC employee during one of the three calls. Indeed, the plaintiff’s own version of events — that he picked up all three calls and spoke with an SLIC employee during only one of them — strongly suggests that all of the calls were initiated not by SLIC, but rather by a third party. Any suggestion that SLIC initiated the calls itself was, the court concluded, wholly “conclusory.” Id.
And as for indirect liability, the court found that the plaintiff had made “no allegations” that would establish agency or other basis for imposing vicarious liability for a third party’s conduct. Id. Because he had not, the court dismissed his claims, albeit without prejudice to his ability to file an amended complaint. Id.
