When "Free Will Kits" Lead to $14 Million Settlements: A TCPA Cold-Calling Catastrophe
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) has been around since 1991, yet some companies still seem surprised when their cold-calling campaigns land them in hot water. The recent settlement in Fuld v. American Income Life Insurance Company serves as a stark reminder that ignoring the National Do Not Call Registry can be a multi-million-dollar mistake.
The "Free" Gift That Kept on Giving (Unwanted Calls)
Krista Fuld just wanted a "free legacy will kit." But as we all know, nothing in life is truly free, especially when it comes with a side of aggressive telemarketing.
According to Fuld's complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, she registered her cell phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry back in March 2012. Fast forward to May 2023, and her phone started ringing. And ringing. And ringing.
Over the course of just over a month, Fuld allegedly received 14 unsolicited calls from various phone numbers—all apparently on behalf of American Income Life Insurance Company (AIL). The calls came from different "spoofed" numbers, making it difficult to identify the true caller until Fuld finally asked directly during one call and was told the company was "American Income Life."
The Classic TCPA Double-Whammy
Fuld's complaint raised two distinct TCPA violations that any company engaging in telemarketing should understand:
1. Calling Numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry
Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), it's prohibited to initiate telephone solicitations to residential telephone subscribers who have registered their numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Companies have a 30-day grace period once a number is placed on the DNC list, but Fuld's number had been on the registry for over 11 years when the calls started.
The complaint alleged that AIL placed multiple calls to Fuld's registered number within a 12-month period, which is precisely what the TCPA prohibits. With statutory damages of up to $500 per violation (or up to $1,500 for willful violations), those 14 calls could have added up quickly for AIL.
2. Failure to Maintain an Internal Do Not Call List
Even when companies comply with the national DNC rules, there's still Internal DNC rules to contend with. This regulation requires companies engaged in telemarketing to maintain their own internal do-not-call lists and honor opt-out requests within 30 days.
According to the complaint, Fuld told callers to stop calling her during "most of the calls." She specifically requested on May 8, 2023, that the calls stop. She told another caller on May 29, 2023, to stop calling her. Yet the calls continued through June 15, 2023.
This is the TCPA equivalent of someone saying "no" while you keep asking them out. It's not charming; it's illegal.
The Cold-Calling Culture: Employee Reviews Tell the Tale
Perhaps the most damning evidence in the complaint came from AIL's own employees (or former employees). Fuld's attorneys included screenshots from Glassdoor and LinkedIn showing employee reviews that painted a picture of a corporate culture built on aggressive cold-calling:
One employee review mentioned receiving "phone numbers of people who have no idea what they signed up for" and noted "they are not aware that they are going to be called."
Another review stated employees were expected to make "1000-1500 calls a week"—which the reviewer noted was "impossible unless you don't have a life and just make calls all day every day."
A LinkedIn profile for an AIL insurance agent described their job duties as "Sales/cold calling."
The complaint alleged that the "free will kit" was merely a pretext—a foot in the door to discuss estate planning and ultimately pitch life insurance products. Whether you call it a "warm lead" strategy or a bait-and-switch, if it involves calling numbers on the DNC Registry without consent, it's a TCPA violation.
What’s a “Solicitation”?
AIL's second defense was even more creative. The company argued that offering a free will kit doesn't constitute a "telephone solicitation" under the TCPA.
The TCPA defines a "telephone solicitation" as a call "for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services." AIL claimed that since the will kit was free, and Fuld never alleged that any caller actually tried to sell her insurance, there was no "solicitation."
The complaint's allegation that the free kit was a "pretext" to eventually sell insurance? AIL dismissed that as "unsupported speculation."
This is an important distinction of whether or not something is a telephone solicitation. The TCPA definition, which seems clear, has created several questions for callers offering “free services” like AIL. Earlier this year, the Seventh Circuit stated telephone solicitations “require the call or message be initiated with the purpose of persuading or urging someone to pay for property, goods, or services.” A court could reasonably find that the purpose of AIL’s call regarding the “free will kit” was to “persuade or urge” the purchase of life insurance.
The $14 Million Question: Why Settle?
Despite these defenses, the parties ultimately reached a settlement for $14,000,000—suggesting that perhaps AIL's defenses weren't as strong as they appeared on paper.
The settlement, filed in March 2025, defines a Settlement Class of persons associated with 49,695 unique telephone numbers that:
Were registered on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days
Received more than one call within any 12-month period between August 11, 2019 and December 4, 2024
Were not AIL insureds
That's nearly 50,000 phone numbers—a scale that suggests this wasn't just about one disgruntled customer. This was apparently a systematic calling campaign that swept up tens of thousands of people who had explicitly said they didn't want telemarketing calls.
The deadline to file a claim is VERY soon: November 25, 2025.
Lessons for Businesses: See the TCPA More Clearly
Here are the key takeaways for any business calling or texting consumers:
1. The National DNC Registry Is Not a Suggestion
If someone has registered their number on the National Do Not Call Registry, you generally cannot call them for telemarketing purposes—period. There are limited exceptions (established business relationship, prior express written consent), but "we're offering something free" is not one of them. Insurance agents should be scrubbing leads against the DNC unless the leads being bought have given consent to be called, and the insurance agents have reviewed the consent language.
2. "Free" Offers Can Still Be Solicitations
Just because you're offering something for "free" doesn't mean you're not engaged in telemarketing. If the free offer is a pretext or first step toward selling products or services, courts are likely to see through that strategy. The TCPA focuses on the purpose of the call, not just what's explicitly said.
3. Honor Opt-Out Requests Immediately
The TCPA requires that opt-out requests be honored "within a reasonable time," not to exceed ten business days. But best practice? Honor them immediately.
4. Third-Party Callers Don't Absolve Liability
Companies sometimes think they can avoid TCPA liability by using independent contractors or third-party telemarketers. While there are nuances about direct versus vicarious liability, the FCC has made clear that the entity "on whose behalf" calls are made can be held liable. If independent agents are calling to sell your products using your leads, you may be on the hook. The recent cases around platform liability are similar to this risk.
5. Employee Practices Reveal Corporate Culture
Those Glassdoor reviews and LinkedIn profiles? They became evidence in a federal lawsuit. Companies should regularly audit what their employees (and former employees) are saying publicly about business practices—especially practices that might violate consumer protection laws.
6. Scale Matters
Fuld received 14 calls. But the settlement class includes nearly 50,000 phone numbers. This suggests a calling campaign that operated at scale, likely for years. With statutory damages of $500-$1,500 per violation, even a modest number of calls per person adds up quickly when multiplied by tens of thousands of class members.
With Great Calling Power Comes Great Responsibility
The case serves as a reminder that TCPA compliance isn't just a legal technicality—it's a respect for consumer choice. The TCPA's consent requirements and the Do Not Call Registry are powerful consumer protection tools. When Congress created the National Do Not Call Registry in 2003, it was responding to overwhelming public demand. Americans were (and still are) tired of unwanted telemarketing calls interrupting their dinners, their work, and their lives.
For companies, the responsibility is clear: respect consumer choice, honor opt-out requests, and understand that "we didn't think it was a solicitation" is not a viable defense strategy. The cost of compliance is far less than a multi-million-dollar settlement.
