DATA ANALYSIS & SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION RELATED TO CASES INVOLVING THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT & SIMILAR STATE LAWS

From pre-filing case evaluation, data analysis and expert testimony through class certification and trial, to notice, claims administration, and distribution of settlement funds.

Title H1

First pafagraph

Class Experts Group, LLC (CEG) supports Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and similar state laws class actions from start to finish: pre-filing case evaluation, data analysis and expert testimony through class certification and trial, and then notice, claims administration and distribution of settlement funds. One team is able to handle your case from the first file review to the final payment, CEG analyzes call, text and fax records against National Do Not Call Registry registrations, internal Do Not Call lists, wireless and line-type data, carrier append and carrier subpoena returns, the Reassigned Numbers Database, wrong-number and non-customer indicators, prerecorded-call records, business and residential identification, established business relationship records, historical and fax reverse append, and customer and consent files. CEG determines how many calls/texts were placed, which telephone numbers they reached, and who may be a member of the proposed class(es).
CEG is retained to prepare and/or execute an objective, reproducible methodology that will assist at mediation or class certification, withstand Daubert proceedings, and support deposition, hearing and trial testimony that explains the analysis to the court and, if applicable, the jury.

By the Numbers

100+ depositions
20+ years of expert opinions and testimony
Methods that have withstood 35 Daubert challenges
2 cases with live testimony at trial

Request a free consultation [https://classexpertsgroup.com/book-a-consultation]

Representative TCPA or related state law cases

Abante Rooter & Plumbing, Inc. v. Alarm.com Inc., No. 4:15-cv-06314 (N.D. Cal.)

Anthony v. Fed. Sav. Bank, No. 1:21-cv-02509 (N.D. Ill.)

Bakov v. Consol. World Travel, No. 1:15-cv-02980 (N.D. Ill.)

Baldwin v. Miracle-Ear, Inc., No. 0:20-cv-01502 (D. Minn)

Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LLC, No. 4:18-cv-01060 (N.D. Cal.)

Birchmeier v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-04069 (N.D. Ill.)

Biringer v. First Family Ins., Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00566 (N.D. Fla.)

Brinker v. Normandin’s, No. 5:14-cv-03007 (N.D. Cal.)

Brown v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 2:13-cv-01170 (C.D. Cal.)

Bumpus v. Realogy Holdings Corp., No. 3:19-cv-03309 (N.D. Cal.)

Caldera v. Am. Med. Collection Agency, No. 2:16-cv-00381 (C.D. Cal.)

Carrese v. Yes Online Inc., No. 2:16-cv-05301 (C.D. Cal.)

Charvat v. Nat’l Holdings Corp., No. 2:14-cv-02205 (S.D. Ohio)

Charvat v. Plymouth Rock Energy, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-04106 (E.D.N.Y.)

Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Servs., No. 5:18-cv-05623 (N.D. Cal.)

Clough v. Revenue Frontier, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-00411 (D.N.H.)

Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-03755 (N.D. Ga.)

Cortes v. Nat’l Credit Adjusters, L.L.C., No. 2:16-cv-00823 (E.D. Cal.)

Davis v. Post Univ., Inc., No. 9:18-cv-81004 (S.D. Fla.)

Dickson v. Direct Energy, LP, No. 5:18-cv-00182 (N.D. Ohio)

Elliot v. Humana, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00329 (W.D. Ky.)

Fanning v. HSBC Card Servs. Inc., No. 8:12-cv-00885 (C.D. Cal.)

Flowers v. Twilio, Inc., No. RG16804363 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda)

Garcia v. Target Corp., No. 0:16-cv-02574 (D. Minn.)

Grogan v. Aaron’s Inc., No. 1:18-cv-02821 (N.D. Ga.)

Gruber v. Yelp, Inc., No. CGC-16-554784 (Cal. Sup. Ct., S.F. Cnty.)

Hennie v. Icot Hearing Sys., LLC, No. 1:18-cv-02045 (N.D. Ga.)

Hetherington v. Omaha Steaks, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-02152 (D. Or.)

Hoffman v. Hearing Help Express Inc., No. 3:19-cv-05960 (W.D. Wash.)

Holmes v. DRS Processing LLC, No. 3:18-cv-01193 (M.D. Fla.)

Hopkins v. Modernize, Inc., No. 4:17-cv-40087 (D. Mass.)

Hossfeld v. Compass Bank, No. 2:16-cv-02017 (N.D. Ala.)

Hurley v. Thomas Messer, No. 3:16-cv-09949 (S.D. W. Va.)

In re Collecto, Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act (TCPA) Litig., No. 1:14-md-02513 (D. Mass.)

Iudiciani v. Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00443 (D.R.I.)

Iverson v. Advanced Disposal Servs., Inc., No. 3:18-cv-00867 (M.D. Fla.)

Jackson v. Athena Bitcoin Inc., No. 4:24-cv-00331 (N.D. Fla.)

Jenkins v. Nat’l Grid USA, No. 2:15-cv-01219 (E.D.N.Y.)

Johansen v. One Planet Ops, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00121 (S.D. Ohio)

Johansen v. Santanna Nat. Gas Corp., No. 1:17-cv-03604 (N.D. Ill.)

Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, No. 9:17-cv-80393 (S.D. Fla.)

Johnson v. Comodo Grp., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-04469 (D.N.J.)

Johnson v. Navient Sols., Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00716 (S.D. Ind.)

Krakauer v. DISH Network L.L.C., No. 1:14-cv-00333 (M.D.N.C. )

Kubacki v. Peapod, LLC, No. 1:13-cv-00729 (N.D. Ill.)

Lavigne v. First Cmty. Bancshares, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00934 (D.N.M. )

Lawson v. Visionworks of Am., Inc., No. 6:23-cv-01566 (M.D. Fla.)

Lennartson v. Papa Murphy’s Int’l LLC, No. 3:15-cv-05307 (W.D. Wash.)

Lenorowitz v. Mosquito Squad Franchising, LLC, No. 7:19-cv-04460 (S.D.N.Y.)

Lofton v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, No. 4:13-cv-05665 (N.D. Cal.)

Lopera v. Receivable Mgmt. Servs. Corp., No. 1:12-cv-09649 (N.D. Ill.)

Manopla v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-01120 (D.N.J.)

Mantha v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-12235 (D. Mass.)

McMillion v. Rash Curtis & Assocs., No. 4:16-cv-03396 (N.D. Cal.)

Meredith v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-01102 (N.D. Ohio)

Mey v. Frontier Commc’ns Corp., No. 3:13-cv-01191 (D. Conn.)

Mey v. Liberty Home Guard, LLC, No. 5:23-cv-00281 (N.D.W. Va.)

Mey v. Matrix Warranty Sols., Inc., No. 5:21-cv-00062 (N.D. W. Va.)

Miholich v. Real Brokerage, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-01038 (S.D. Cal.)

Mohamed v. Am. Motor Co., LLC, No. 1:15-cv-23352 (S.D. Fla.)

Monitronics Int’l, Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., No. 1:13-md-02493 (N.D. W. Va.)

Morris v. SolarCity Corp., No. 3:15-cv-05107 (N.D. Cal.)

Naiman v. Total Merchant Servs., Inc., No. 4:17-cv-03806 (N.D. Cal.)

Ott v. Mortg. Invs. Corp. of Ohio, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00645 (D. Or.)

Parker v. Universal Pictures, No. 6:16-cv-01193 (M.D. Fla.)

Pieterson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:17-cv-02306 (N.D. Cal.)

Roberts v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-05083 (N.D. Cal.)

Rodriguez v. Etreby Computer Co., Inc., No. 2:10-cv-03522 (C.D. Cal.)

Samson v. UnitedHealthcare Servs. Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00175 (W.D. Wash.)

Saunders v. Cabela’s Inc., No. CGC-14-537095 (Cal. Super. Ct. (San Francisco Cnty.))

Schaffer v. First Choice Payment Sols. G.P., No. 8:18-cv-01981 (C.D. Cal.)

Sheean v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-11532 (E.D. Mich.)

Slovin v. Sunrun, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-05340 (N.D. Cal.)

Thomas v. Fin. Corp. of Am., No. 3:19-cv-00152 (N.D. Tex.)

Vance v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 5:17-cv-00179 (N.D.W. Va.)

Walters v. Pro Custom Solar LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00247 (D.N.J.)

Wang v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:16-cv-11223 (N.D. Ill.)

West v. Cal. Serv. Bureau, Inc., No. 4:16-cv-03124 (N.D. Cal.)

Williams v. PillPack LLC, No. 3:19-cv-05282 (W.D. Wash.)

Wright v. EXP Realty, LLC, No. 6:18-cv-01851 (M.D. Fla.)

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Claims

Each Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claim turns on different records. A National Do Not Call Registry (NDNCR) claim needs registration dates and a count of calls to each number within a 12-month period after they have been registered on the NDNCR for 30 days of more. A prerecorded-voice claim needs dialer or campaign data showing which calls played a message. An opt-out claim needs the date of each stop request and every contact after it. CEG scopes each engagement to the claims pleaded and the data available, and designs a methodology for claims outside the list below. Common claims include:

Prerecorded and artificial voice calls
Autodialed calls and texts
Wrong-number and reassigned-number calls
National Do Not Call Registry (NDNCR)
Internal Do Not Call (IDNC) lists and opt-outs
Calls outside permitted hours (before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. in the recipient’s local time)
Unsolicited fax advertising
State “mini-TCPA” and telephone solicitation statutes
Call-recording and wiretap claims (e.g., California Invasion of Privacy Act, Florida Security of Communications Act, federal Wiretap Act)

Our Process

Every step is documented so opposing experts can reproduce it and our experts can explain it under cross-examination.

Data review. CEG prefers to review what data exists before discovery closes and helps counsel identify, request or produce the right files and documents: which systems logged the calls and texts, which vendors hold the records, how long those records are retained, and which fields are needed to apply the class definition.
Hygiene and standardization. CEG normalizes, validates and deduplicates records from multiple files and formats. Telephone numbers are converted to a single 10-digit format; timestamps are converted to a common time zone, and to the recipient’s local time where calling-hour claims are at issue; test, internal and invalid numbers are flagged; and duplicate records across systems are reconciled. Record counts are tied back to the source files at each step, and every exclusion is logged.
Call identification. CEG translates the class definition into objective criteria and applies them to the data. Depending on the claims, the criteria can include the class period, call or message type, whether the call connected, whether a prerecorded message played, Do Not Call Registry status and registration date, the number of calls to a number within a 12-month period, and contacts made after an opt-out request. Line type (wireless or landline) is determined from carrier and porting data as of the call date.

Class member identification. CEG employs reverse append and related techniques to identify the people behind the numbers as of the dates the calls were placed, not as of today. Results are cross-checked against the defendant’s customer and account records and, where needed, subpoenaed carrier subscriber records. The results show whether, and how reliably, class members can be identified from objective records, and the same output becomes the notice list if a class is certified.
Expert report and testimony. CEG delivers findings in a report that meets the disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), including the opinions, the data considered, the methodology and supporting exhibits. Workpapers and code are retained so every figure can be reproduced, and the expert who signs the report supports it at deposition, at hearings and at trial.

One Team From Early Case Assessment to Trial or Settlement

Early case assessment: Preliminary analysis of available data to estimate class size, potential exposure and data gaps, and to shape litigation or discovery strategy. Done before filing or early in discovery, it shows whether the records can support a class and which records to request or preserve.

Class certification analysis: Opinions on numerosity, ascertainability, class member identification and location, and adequacy of notice, whether certification is being sought or opposed. The analysis can be run against alternative class definitions so counsel can see how each definition changes the size of the class.

Rebuttal reports and Daubert support: Critiques of opposing experts’ data and methodology, including re-running their analysis on the produced data, testing error rates, and identifying records they excluded or misread, and support in responding to Daubert challenges.

Deposition and trial testimony: Senior expert with jury trial and cross-examination experience in TCPA class actions, including live trial testimony in Krakauer and McMillion.

Pre-mediation damages analysis: Violation counts, exposure estimates, damages models and allocation formulas that give both sides a common factual basis for negotiation.

Notice and settlement administration: Notice plans, claims processing and fund distribution, handled in-house by the team that performed the underlying analysis.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Cases through Trial

Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-333 (M.D.N.C.) and McMillion v. Rash Curtis & Associates, No. 4:16-cv-03396-YGR (N.D. Cal.) went to a jury, and Ms. Verkhovskaya’s analysis was tested through cross-examination at trial. In both cases, the court denied a Daubert challenge to Ms. Verkhovskaya’s opinions, and in Krakauer, the judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC

No. 1:14-cv-333 (M.D.N.C.), aff’d, 925 F.3d 643 (4th Cir. 2019), cert. denied

Daubert challenge denied; live testimony at trial; judgment affirmed on appeal

The case concerned telemarketing calls placed by Satellite Systems Network (SSN), a Dish retailer, to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Ms. Verkhovskaya was retained to analyze SSN’s outbound call records, which were obtained from Five9, the vendor whose dialing platform SSN used. Her analysis isolated calls that connected and matched them against the Registry. It screened out numbers that had not been registered for at least 30 days, identified numbers that received two or more calls within a 12-month period, and removed business numbers. It also associated each remaining number with a name and address for purposes of class notice.

In September 2015, the court certified a class of persons whose numbers had been on the Registry or on Dish’s or SSN’s internal Do Not Call lists for at least 30 days and who received two calls in a single year. The court denied a Daubert challenge to her testimony. She testified live at the January 2017 trial and was cross-examined on her methodology. The jury awarded $400 for each of 51,119 calls. The court found the violations willful and trebled damages to $1,200 per call, for a judgment of roughly $61 million. In ruling on post-trial motions, the court described her work as “clear, cogent testimony explaining her methodology and the bases for her opinions.”

Her data was also used in the post-judgment claims process. The district court entered judgment for approximately 11,000 class members without requiring a claim form, finding their entitlement clear from the data. In affirming, the Fourth Circuit addressed the class-wide data directly, noting that the records showed when calls were placed and whether they connected, and that the data showed whether each number was residential and linked numbers to names and addresses. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on December 16, 2019.

McMillion v. Rash Curtis & Associates (later captioned Perez v. Rash Curtis & Associates)

No. 4:16-cv-03396-YGR (N.D. Cal.)

Daubert challenge denied; class member and line-type analysis tested through live testimony at trial

The case concerned autodialed and prerecorded calls placed by Rash Curtis, a debt collector, to cell phones. The court certified four classes: two covering people whose numbers Rash Curtis obtained through skip tracing, and two covering calls to people who never had an account with the company. Class membership therefore depended on separating debtors from non-debtors and wireless numbers from landlines across the defendant’s call records.

Ms. Verkhovskaya worked from Rash Curtis’s call detail records and its debtor account database. Using reverse append and other industry-standard techniques, she identified the subscribers associated with called numbers and compared them against the people whose accounts had been placed with Rash Curtis. She also determined which called numbers were wireless.

Rash Curtis filed a Daubert motion to strike or exclude her opinions. The court denied the motion, holding that the challenge to an assumption underlying her methodology went to the weight of her opinion, not its admissibility. Perez v. Rash Curtis & Assocs., 2019 WL 1491694, at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2019). She testified at the May 2019 jury trial and was cross-examined on her debtor/non-debtor and line-type analysis.

The jury found that Rash Curtis made 534,698 calls in violation of the TCPA, and the court entered judgment of $500 per call, for an aggregate of $267,349,000. The matter was later resolved through a settlement that disposed of the pending Ninth Circuit appeal.

Lead Expert: Anya Verkhovskaya

Ms. Verkhovskaya leads CEG’s expert witness practice. She has served as a class certification expert and testifying expert in complex, high-stakes class actions nationwide, and has testified at jury trials and in numerous class certification and evidentiary hearings. Beyond the trials described above, she has extensive experience under cross-examination in TCPA litigation.

anyav@classexpertsgroup.com

Expert: Christina Peters-Stasiewicz

Ms. Peters-Stasiewicz is Vice President at CEG. She specializes in the data behind complex class action litigations and/or settlements. Working alongside Ms. Verkhovskaya in numerous TCPA and related State cases, she has coordinated the data analysis supporting opinions on ascertainability, class certification, notice adequacy and settlement issues.

christinap@classexpertsgroup.com

Data We Analyze

CEG works with the following record types:

Telephone call logs and call detail records
Dialer and campaign exports
Text message logs and SMS platform exports
Prerecorded message and voicemail logs
Call recordings and automated transcriptions
Carrier subscriber records, including subpoena returns
Wireless/landline line-type and number porting data
Reassigned Numbers Database results
National Do Not Call Registry data
State Do Not Call lists
Internal Do Not Call lists and opt-out (STOP) records
Consent records
Established business relationship records
Lead files and lead vendor records
IP and web form data
CRM data and customer account files
Billing and transactional records
Fax transmission logs
Reverse append and skip-trace results

Frequently Asked Questions

When should you talk to an expert?

As early as possible, ideally before discovery requests go out or responses are due. Early involvement helps you identify the dialer data, carrier records and consent files the analysis will need, and avoids gaps that are hard to fill later.

Carriers, texting platforms and dialer vendors purge records on their own schedules, so preservation letters and subpoenas may need to go out early. An expert can help draft requests that name the specific systems and fields the analysis needs, prepare Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics, and review a sample production to confirm the full production will be usable before deadlines pass. For defendants, an early look at the data gives a realistic picture of class size and exposure before mediation.

How do CEG’s experts form their opinions?

CEG’s experts base their opinions on the records, facts and evidence in the case, and each report is prepared to meet the disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

The analysis starts from data produced in the case or obtained by subpoena, not from estimates. Every assumption, such as how a dialer disposition code is interpreted, is stated in the report and tied to a document or testimony. Record counts are reconciled from the raw files to the final figures so opposing experts can follow each step. Legal questions, such as whether a particular consent was valid, are left to the court: CEG applies the criteria that define the class and can show how the results change under alternative criteria.