class action – Bring To Market

$9.8 Million in Two Texting Settlements: The Growth Playbook Gaps Behind Teleflora and Coast Dental

SMS is one of the highest-converting channels a growth team can run. It is also one of the easiest to get sued over. Two settlements disclosed in October 2026 put a combined price of up to about $9.8 million on two ordinary-looking gaps in texting programs.

The two cases

Teleflora, $6 million. In Carter v. Teleflora LLC (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 2026-012979-CA-01), Teleflora agreed to settle claims that it sent promotional texts to people who never provided their numbers and whose numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry. The class covers people who received more than one promotional text within 12 months, starting May 9, 2021, on a number registered for at least 30 days. The estimated payout is about $251 per class member. Teleflora denies wrongdoing. The final approval hearing is November 25, 2026.

Coast Dental, up to $3.84 million. In Chaviano v. Coast Dental Services, LLC, filed in Florida in July 2026, Coast Dental agreed to pay up to $3,840,664 over appointment-related texts and calls allegedly sent after consumers replied STOP. The claims were brought under the TCPA and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The class is roughly 24,308 people, each eligible for up to $59 in cash or a toothbrush voucher worth up to $99. The final approval hearing is December 9, 2026.

Gap one: list acquisition without suppression

Teleflora’s fact pattern is a familiar growth move: reach people who are not yet customers. When the number did not come from the person, consent is hard to show, and registry status becomes the whole case. If your acquisition plan includes texting numbers you did not collect yourself, the National DNC Registry check belongs in the pipeline, not in a checklist someone forgets.

Gap two: lifecycle messages that ignore opt-outs

Coast Dental’s fact pattern is subtler. Appointment reminders and scheduling nudges feel like service messages, so they often run on a different system or a different team’s automation. The allegation is that people who opted out kept receiving them. For growth teams, the lesson is that an opt-out has to reach every automation that can send to that number, including retention and re-engagement flows.

Why these become class actions

Both cases are defined by a process, not an individual message. When the same gap affects every recipient, it creates a class. Class sizes in the tens of thousands are normal, and that is how a modest per-person payout becomes a multimillion-dollar fund.

What it costs per contact

A quick way to make this real for leadership: both settlements land at a few hundred dollars or less per class member, but the totals run into the millions because the classes are large. Teleflora’s estimated payout is about $251 per person. Coast Dental’s class is roughly 24,308 people. Multiply a small per-contact risk by a big list and the number gets attention fast. That is the case for spending on suppression before scale, not after.

The growth-safe SMS checklist

Document the source and consent for every number in a promotional send.
Scrub non-customer numbers against the National DNC Registry before the first message.
Route STOP replies to a single suppression list that every sending platform reads.
Audit lifecycle and reminder flows, not just campaign blasts.
Screen lists for known litigation risk before launch.

That last item is where TCPALitigatorList.com fits into a growth stack. It lets teams check numbers against known TCPA litigators before a campaign goes out, so the contacts most likely to file are removed upstream. It complements consent capture and DNC scrubbing rather than replacing them.

Takeaway

Neither of these settlements came from a novel legal theory. They came from scale meeting a process gap. Growth teams that build suppression and screening into the pipeline can keep texting aggressively without handing plaintiffs a ready-made class.

Sources

Q1 2026 Set a TCPA Filing Record. Here’s What the Latest Settlements Tell GTM Teams.

The data point that should reframe how every go-to-market team thinks about outbound: more TCPA class actions were filed in the first quarter of 2026 than in any quarter on record. That is the backdrop for a run of settlements finalized this spring — Zales at $7.54 million, Truist Bank at $4.1 million, Everything Breaks at roughly $995,000 — and each one maps to a specific, fixable breakdown in a marketing operation.

Reading the settlements as GTM diagnostics

Zales, $7.54M — a list-sourcing failure. The class covers numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry that received marketing texts anyway. For a GTM team, this is a question of where audiences come from and how they are filtered. If your SMS audiences are built from purchased data, old CRM segments, or event lists that were never scrubbed against the DNC registry, you are assembling a Zales class one campaign at a time.

Truist, $4.1M — a data-quality failure. The bank settled over prerecorded calls that reached the wrong people — numbers that had been reassigned or simply did not belong to the intended customer. For lifecycle and retention programs, this is the reassigned-number problem: phone numbers change hands constantly, and a CRM that never re-verifies them will keep dialing strangers.

Everything Breaks, ~$995K — the same DNC failure, smaller company. The lesson is that none of this scales with brand size. A mid-market outbound program with a stale list carries the same per-message exposure as a national retailer.

Why the filing record changes the calculus

When TCPA filings hit an all-time high, the plaintiffs’ bar is signaling that intake and class-building have become a repeatable, low-friction pipeline. The implication for marketing leaders is that compliance can no longer sit downstream as a legal review after a campaign ships. It has to be designed into the audience-build and campaign-QA stages, where the actual risk is created.

What to operationalize

Make DNC scrubbing a non-negotiable, automated step in every audience build, refreshed on a current cycle rather than from a stale file. Synchronize internal opt-out and do-not-call data across every platform — CRM, ESP, SMS tool, dialer — so a “STOP” in one system suppresses the contact everywhere. Add reassigned-number and phone-validation checks to recurring programs so lifecycle automation is not quietly dialing numbers that changed owners. And keep consent and suppression evidence that your team can produce on demand, because the absence of that proof is what converts an allegation into a settlement fund.

From a go-to-market standpoint, list hygiene belongs in your campaign QA, not in a legal post-mortem. Marketing-ops teams increasingly screen outbound audiences against TCPALitigatorList.com, the most widely used registry of known TCPA litigators and serial plaintiffs, so a single suppression step upstream stops a known filer from turning a routine nurture flow into a class action. Wiring that check into your audience-build process is a small operational change with an outsized risk reduction.

The bottom line

Zales, Truist, and Everything Breaks are not cautionary tales about bad actors. They are cautionary tales about ordinary outbound programs with ungoverned lists. In a record-setting litigation environment, the GTM teams that move compliance upstream — into how audiences are sourced, filtered, and refreshed — are the ones that stay out of the next settlement roundup.

Sources

Top Class Actions — “$7.54M Zales TCPA class action settlement”; Class Action.org and CompliancePoint — Truist Bank $4.1M TCPA settlement coverage; Top Class Actions — “Everything Breaks $995,000 TCPA settlement”; Shipkevich PLLC / CompliancePoint — 2026 TCPA litigation trend data.

The OpenAI / Twilio TCPA Suit Is a Shot Across the Bow for Every AI-Powered GTM Stack

If your GTM stack uses an AI agent to draft outbound messages, or a CPaaS provider like Twilio to deliver them, the Lowry v. OpenAI lawsuit should be on your radar — and on your CFO’s.

The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, is the first major TCPA complaint to advance a clean ‘platform liability’ theory against an AI provider and a CPaaS provider for messages sent by a downstream customer. The theory could quietly reset the risk model for every GTM team running AI-augmented outbound.

What the complaint actually says

The plaintiff, William Lowry, alleges he received unwanted marketing text messages from a third party called Fresh Start Group, sent via Twilio-provisioned numbers, that were generated using OpenAI’s platform. The complaint names OpenAI and Twilio as defendants under the theory that they ’caused’ the messages to be initiated.

The proposed class: every U.S. consumer who received a marketing message generated on the OpenAI platform where the number was on the DNC list and OpenAI lacked consent. At $500 per message with a four-year lookback, plaintiff’s counsel has cited theoretical exposure in the trillions. That’s not what they’ll get. It is, however, the number that will frame every settlement conversation.

Why this is a GTM problem, not a vendor problem

The instinct of marketing-ops leaders reading this is to say: ‘good, that’s Twilio’s and OpenAI’s problem.’ That instinct is wrong, for two reasons.

First, if vendors face platform liability, they will push it back into customer contracts. Expect tighter indemnity clauses, mandatory consent attestation, audit rights into your CRM and lead-source records, and the right to suspend service on suspicion of non-compliance. Your GTM stack just became contractually more fragile.

Second, if the platform-liability theory works, plaintiff’s counsel will keep climbing the stack. CPaaS and AI providers are the obvious first targets. CRMs, marketing automation platforms, and lead-gen vendors are the obvious second wave. Eventually, the ask will be: ‘who in this supply chain actually documented consent?’ If the answer is no one — or only the operator at the end — that operator pays.

What GTM and marketing-ops teams should do now

Audit your AI outbound surface. Inventory every use of an AI-generated message in your stack: outbound email personalization, SMS drafting, voice agents, chatbots that escalate to call. For each, write down: who triggered it, what consent was on file, what platform generated it, what platform delivered it.

Reread your CPaaS and AI vendor contracts. Most disclaim TCPA liability and shove it back to the customer. After Lowry, expect renegotiation pressure in both directions — the vendor will want stronger attestations from you; you’ll want clearer indemnity if their inadequate guardrails contributed to a class.

Build a consent ledger. A single source of truth for every number in your outbound stack, with timestamp, source, channel scope, and opt-out status. If a Lowry-style case finds you as a downstream sub-defendant, the ledger is your defense.

Stop using AI to scale calling that wasn’t consented to. The fastest way to land in a Lowry-style class is to use AI to dramatically expand the reach of a list that didn’t have rigorous consent provenance. AI multiplies your risk surface at the same rate it multiplies your output.

For GTM and marketing-ops leaders, this is exactly the kind of risk that should live inside your lead lifecycle, not in legal’s inbox. TCPALitigatorList.com gives revenue teams a way to suppress known TCPA litigators and serial plaintiffs at the top of the funnel — before a number ever hits the dialer, the SMS platform, or a sales rep’s queue. Treat it the same way you treat email-deliverability hygiene: a quiet, automated check that keeps your pipeline from blowing up.

Regulatory backdrop

The FCC has already declared that AI-generated voices count as ‘artificial or prerecorded voice’ under the TCPA, and has issued cease-and-desist letters to infrastructure providers (including Twilio in 2024) over alleged enabling of illegal robocall traffic. Lowry is the litigation-side extension of that regulatory posture.

For GTM teams, the through-line is simple: as AI gets integrated deeper into outbound motions, the legal system is allocating liability across the stack, not just at the customer-facing entity. Build your consent architecture to survive that allocation.

Sources

National Law Review: TCPA Complaint Against OpenAI and Twilio
Lexology: New TCPA Complaint Could Change Everything

If Your Marketing Stack Includes Ringless Voicemail, Read This Before Your Next Campaign Launch

Ringless voicemail (RVM) has lived in a strange corner of the GTM stack for years — a high-deliverability, low-friction channel that growth teams reach for when email and SMS are saturated. The pitch is appealing: messages get into the consumer’s voicemail without interrupting them. The legal reality, in 2026, is brutal.

Two recent cases should reshape how GTM teams think about RVM as a channel — and whether it should remain in the stack at all.

Case one: National Retail Solutions, $6.5M

NRS, a B2B point-of-sale technology vendor, just agreed to pay more than $6.5 million to resolve a TCPA class action over its RVM campaigns. The settlement covers a class capped to messages sent through a single RVM provider, yet still exceeds 50,000 class members each set to receive more than $100. The economics are not subtle.

The GTM read: NRS was running a growth motion that probably looked like a low-risk, high-output channel inside their funnel. It wasn’t. The cost-per-acquisition for that channel — once you back the settlement into the math — has obliterated whatever pipeline it built.

Case two: GoHighLevel + a Las Vegas realtor

A solo realtor in Las Vegas used GoHighLevel to drop ringless voicemails on expired listings. A court certified a TCPA class against her, finding she had no documentation of consent from the class members and that the messages qualified as prerecorded calls subject to the TCPA.

The lesson for GTM and marketing-ops leaders is sharp: your platform’s automation does not insulate you from TCPA exposure. If your stack supports an action, and you take that action, you own the consent risk. The platform doesn’t.

What the FCC actually says

In 2022, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling holding that ringless voicemails to wireless phones are ‘calls’ under the TCPA and require prior express written consent. That rule has not been softened. If anything, recent court decisions have hardened it — including a 2025 case holding that simply alleging identical message content is enough to support a prerecorded-call claim at the pleadings stage.

That last point matters operationally. It means a plaintiff doesn’t need a forensic audit of your stack to survive a motion to dismiss. They just need to allege your messages look the same to multiple recipients. Your campaign architecture is the evidence.

The GTM playbook on RVM

Reclassify RVM as a regulated channel. In your lifecycle plan, treat RVM the same way you treat outbound calls — prior express written consent, channel-specific opt-in, DNC scrub, litigator suppression, revocation handling.

Pull RVM from cold motions. If you’re using RVM for prospecting or expired-listing outreach, that is the highest-risk use case and the one courts are most willing to certify against.

Audit consent provenance for every list. Lead vendors that won’t or can’t produce per-number consent records for the RVM channel specifically are a hard pass. ‘They opted in to email’ is not consent to a voicemail.

Set a vendor accountability standard. If your RVM platform’s docs or sales reps still pitch the ‘not a call’ theory, treat it as a risk indicator and document the divergence.

Strategic frame

The RVM channel doesn’t have to be removed from the GTM stack. It has to be repositioned. Used against an opted-in customer base with clean consent records, RVM is a legitimate retention channel. Used as a cold-prospecting workaround for inadequate lead consent, it’s a trillion-dollar-statute waiting to fire.

The NRS settlement and the GoHighLevel certification are the industry’s last polite warning. Treat RVM like a regulated channel, or remove it from the stack.

Sources

National Law Review: $6.5M NRS Ringless Voicemail Settlement
TCPAWorld: GoHighLevel Realtor Faces Massive RVM Exposure

Tennessee’s New Telemarketing Oversight Law Lands July 1 — Build It Into Your GTM Plan Now

For GTM and marketing-ops leaders running campaigns into Tennessee, the calendar just got tighter. Tennessee’s General Assembly passed HB 2408 and its companion SB 2659 unanimously, the Speaker signed off on April 30, 2026, and the bill was transmitted to Governor Bill Lee on May 7. If signed, it applies to conduct on or after July 1, 2026 — right in the middle of Q3 launch season.

This isn’t a federal TCPA story. This is a state regulator getting the keys to your dialer logs, your SMS platform, and your consent records. And it’s a preview of what’s coming in other states.

What GTM teams actually need to know

HB 2408 adds a new oversight layer on top of Tennessee’s existing telephone and text-solicitation framework. The practical effect is three things:

Reporting. Businesses running automated outbound campaigns will need to file periodic reports about their activity. That means your demand-gen team’s dialing volumes are about to become regulator-visible.

Recordkeeping. Consent provenance, opt-out events, and call/text logs will need to be retained in a form the state can review. Your CRM and your dialer have to actually agree with each other.

Solicitation limits. The bill tightens what you can do, when, and how often. Expect operational rules that overlap with but extend beyond the federal TCPA’s calling-hour, frequency, and consent baselines.

Why this is a GTM problem, not a legal problem

Marketing ops teams have spent two years building lifecycle programs assuming the federal TCPA is the ceiling. That assumption is now wrong in at least three states (Tennessee, New York, Mississippi), and the gap is widening as the FCC moves the other direction with its proposed rollback FNPRM.

The GTM cost of getting this wrong is not abstract. It looks like:

— A lifecycle automation that perfectly satisfies federal rules but trips a state reporting obligation you didn’t know existed.

— A nurture sequence that hits Tennessee numbers during a window the new state law restricts, even though it’s fine federally.

— A lead vendor with messy consent provenance that you can’t audit in time to file a clean state report.

None of these are catastrophic in isolation. All of them are expensive to retrofit after a regulator comes knocking.

The 30-day GTM action list

State-segment your outbound. If you don’t already report dialer and SMS volume by state in your marketing ops dashboard, add it this sprint. You can’t manage what you can’t see.

Map every lead source against state rules. Each form, partner, and inbound channel needs a documented consent path that holds up under state-level scrutiny, not just federal.

Get your vendors on side. Push your dialer, SMS, and lead-vendor contracts to explicitly cover state recordkeeping and production obligations. If they push back, that’s signal.

Build litigator suppression into the funnel. Reporting regimes mean every TCPA filing becomes a paper trail back to your funnel. The fewer known-plaintiff numbers in your dial list, the smaller the trail.

The strategic read

Tennessee is a leading indicator. Federal TCPA enforcement is softening, but state-level enforcement is hardening fast — and the states are using the same playbook of reporting + recordkeeping + private rights of action. GTM teams that treat compliance as a 50-state patchwork rather than a single federal program will be the ones who keep growing through the next 18 months without unexpected legal drag.

July 1 is six weeks away. If Tennessee is in your sales territory, now is the time to put this on the marketing-ops roadmap.

Sources

TCPAWorld: Tennessee’s New Solicitation Oversight Law
National Law Review: Tennessee Adds Oversight Mechanism to Solicitation Framework

The $28M SiriusXM Lesson: Your Internal Do-Not-Call List Is a GTM Asset, Not a Compliance Checkbox

SiriusXM’s $28 million TCPA class action settlement reached its final approval hearing on May 11, 2026, capping a case that should be required reading for any GTM organization running an outbound calling motion. The headline is the dollar figure. The actionable insight is what the case reveals about how internal Do-Not-Call lists fail — and why those failures are increasingly a GTM ops problem, not just a legal one.

The case in one sentence

In Campbell v. SiriusXM Radio, Inc., a class of consumers alleged that SiriusXM continued to make telemarketing calls to people who were either on the National Do Not Call Registry or who had specifically asked SiriusXM to stop calling — over a window stretching from April 27, 2019 to October 31, 2025. The size of the class and the duration of the alleged violations point to a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.

Why this is a GTM problem

Most large companies don’t actively decide to call people who asked them to stop. The violations accumulate at the seams — the places where customer requests pass between teams, systems, and vendors. Those seams are exactly the places GTM ops typically owns. Specifically:

The opt-out → suppression handoff. A customer texts “STOP” or asks a CSM to remove them. Where does that signal go? In most stacks, it goes to a marketing automation tool or a CRM. Does it propagate to the outbound dialer, the SMS platform, the partner contact pipeline, the data warehouse used for upload to new acquisition campaigns? In most companies, the answer is “yes, partially, with lags.” That’s where Campbell-style cases originate.

The lifecycle marketing seam. A consumer opts out of marketing but stays a customer. Your retention motion fires up a re-engagement push. Whose responsibility is it to confirm the consumer didn’t opt out of all calling? This question is increasingly being litigated, and answer-by-default is starting to fail.

Acquired-data and partner-source contact. A consumer opted out three years ago. Your company acquires a new business unit, ingests its contact lists, and runs a campaign. The opted-out number isn’t on the new list’s suppression — but your master list still has the opt-out. Whose responsibility is it to enforce?

The GTM control plane

The companies that get this right treat their suppression infrastructure as a first-class GTM asset:

A single source-of-truth opt-out table, owned by GTM ops, that ingests opt-outs from every channel (web forms, SMS keywords, inbound calls, email link-clicks, partner-reported opt-outs, postal mail) within hours, not weeks. Outbound sending systems — dialer, SMS, email, partner-facing CDP — read from that table as a blocking check before any send. Migration and acquisition playbooks include a “merge suppression lists” step with reconciliation. Quarterly audits sample random opt-outs and verify zero outbound contact since the opt-out date.

Companies that don’t get this right typically discover the gap only when a plaintiff’s counsel runs the dataset analysis that produced Campbell.

The reputational layer

The brand cost of being a defendant in a case like this is real but often underestimated. The settlement website (sxmtcpasettlement.com) and accompanying claim form become high-traffic destinations for ex-customers, current customers, and prospects researching the brand. The narrative that “this company kept calling people who asked them to stop” surfaces in news coverage, social media, and search results — affecting acquisition and retention metrics in ways that show up in the dashboard but don’t get attributed to the underlying compliance failure.

If your demand-gen motion leans on outbound calling or SMS, a litigator-suppression layer belongs in your stack right next to your DNC scrub and consent-capture audit. Tools like TCPALitigatorList.com index numbers tied to known TCPA plaintiffs and serial filers; running your dialing lists through that file before you hand them off to SDRs or a dialer vendor is one of the lowest-friction risk controls a GTM team can deploy.

The action list for GTM leaders

Within 30 days: map every system that captures an opt-out and every system that initiates outbound contact, and confirm the data flow between them. Within 60 days: stand up a quarterly suppression audit using a random sample of opt-outs. Within 90 days: revise any partner or vendor agreement that involves outbound contact to mandate shared use of your suppression list. The companies that operationalize these basics are the ones whose growth motions look defensible 18 months from now; the ones that don’t are the next round of Campbell defendants.

Sources

Campbell v. SiriusXM Radio, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-2261 (C.D. Ill.); class settlement website (sxmtcpasettlement.com); reporting by Inside Radio, TopClassActions, and Cord Cutters News.