Court Upholds TCPA Prerecorded Voice Claims – Advertising, Marketing & Branding

On June 10, 2025, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy decision for
companies that find themselves contesting prerecorded voice claims.
In Taylor v. Kin Insurance Inc., the
Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, finding that
Plaintiff had plausibly alleged Defendant’s use of prerecorded
voice technology in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(“TCPA”). As our readers are aware, the TCPA makes it
unlawful “to initiate any telephone call to any residential
telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver
a message without the prior express consent of the called
party.”

In its Motion, Defendant argued that Plaintiff had not pled
sufficient facts to create the inference that the subject telephone
calls utilized prerecorded voice. In support thereof, Defendant
claimed that Plaintiff’s allegations were pled in merely a
conclusory fashion. The Court disagreed, holding that Plaintiff had
met the standard of pleading established by other courts in the
district. TCPA defendants often contest and succeed in their
motions to dismiss prerecorded voice claims on the basis that they
are merely cursory recitations of TCPA statutory language, lacking
specificity. Taylor is notable because Plaintiff put
significant effort into substantiating her allegations. As a
result, the Court allowed her claims to proceed past this stage of
the litigation.

The Court’s Analysis of Plaintiff’s Prerecorded Voice
Claims

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff received two phone calls
advertising Defendant’s home insurance products. Plaintiff did
not answer the calls, and two voicemail messages were left on her
cellphone. Plaintiff alleges that both messages utilized
prerecorded voice. In addition, Plaintiff claims that she never
provided express consent to receive automated telemarketing calls
from Defendant.

In its opinion, the Court noted that the majority of courts in
the Northern District of Illinois have found the pleading standard
satisfied when a TCPA plaintiff can describe anything “about
the circumstances of a call or message contributing to his belief
it was prerecorded.” The Court further explained that two or
more facts consistent with use of prerecorded voice are usually
sufficient to state a claim.

In deciding for Plaintiff, the Court relied on her allegations
that: 1) both subject voicemails were “identical in tone,
voice, content, and style;” 2) others have complained about
receiving the same exact calls; and 3) the voicemail messages were
generic in nature (did not use Plaintiff’s name or other
identifying information) and had the exact same .wav size.

Why Does Taylor Matter to Your Business?

As courts have frequently noted, the commonplace practice of
“parroting” statutory language is a pervasive issue with
many TCPA complaints. Often, this lack of specificity warrants
dismissal at the pleading stages.

In Taylor, the Plaintiff certainly bucked this trend,
detailing for the Court how the calls at issue purportedly utilized
prerecorded voice. Taylor serves as a reminder that TCPA
plaintiffs continue to enhance their tactics. Although many
complaints are boilerplate, simple improvements can better their
chances of surviving the pleading stages of TCPA litigation
proceedings. However, the best counter to prerecorded or artificial
voice claims remains the same: acquire express written consent to
use such technology prior to contacting consumers.

Given the ever-changing landscape of TCPA litigation, it is
important that businesses regularly consult with experienced
telemarketing law counsel. For well over a decade, the attorneys at
Klein Moynihan Turco have defended countless TCPA claims on behalf
of the telemarketing industry.

Related Blog Posts:

Did This Fresh Subway TCPA Litigation Decision
Refresh A New Type of Claim?

Florida TCPA Action Survives Motion to
Dismiss

New Oklahoma Mini-TCPA Becomes Law

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.