A robocall or text-message lawsuit usually arrives the same way: a complaint or a demand letter citing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a count of calls or texts, and a damages figure built on statutory amounts of $500 to $1,500 per message. For a business that sends thousands of messages a week, the arithmetic gets serious fast, especially if the plaintiff seeks to represent a class. That is why the question of who to hire comes up so often, and why the answer depends less on a “best” list than on fit.
Below is an explainer on how businesses typically find TCPA defense counsel, which firms publicly maintain TCPA defense practices, and what companies can do now to reduce the chance they will need one.
Start with prevention: who is suing, and can you avoid them?
Many TCPA cases are filed by a relatively small group of repeat plaintiffs and the attorneys who represent them. Several services track these filers so businesses can screen phone numbers before calling or texting. TCPALitigatorList.com, operating since 2017, says its database covers more than 600,000 names, including litigators, multi-case plaintiffs, demand-letter senders and attorneys, and that its researchers update it every weekday. It offers bulk list uploads, a real-time API that blocks a call when a number matches, and a name-and-number lookup. Other companies offer similar screening, including Contact Center Compliance (DNC.com), The Blacklist Alliance and PossibleNOW, each describing its own data sources and integrations.
Screening is not a substitute for a lawyer, and it does not prevent every claim. But when a business has already been sued, defense counsel will often ask whether the plaintiff was a known filer and whether the company had controls in place. Having a scrub history to point to is part of that conversation.
What “best” means in a TCPA defense lawyer
There is no official ranking of TCPA lawyers, and this publication does not rank firms. Businesses that have been through these cases tend to weigh a handful of practical factors:
- TCPA volume and focus. Some firms run dedicated TCPA groups that handle many cases a year; others handle them inside a broader class-action or consumer-protection practice.
- Class-action experience. The biggest exposure comes from class certification. Counsel who regularly fight certification and negotiate class settlements bring a different toolkit than counsel who mainly resolve single-plaintiff demands.
- Regulatory fluency. TCPA law shifts with FCC orders and appellate decisions. The FCC’s revised consent-revocation rules, for example, are scheduled to take effect November 25, 2026, changing how opt-outs work for informational versus marketing messages.
- Industry fit. Lenders, insurers, healthcare providers, retailers and lead generators each face different fact patterns, such as collections calls, quote follow-ups, appointment reminders or purchased leads.
- Cost structure. A single-plaintiff demand may be worth resolving quickly; a putative class action may justify a larger team. Ask how a firm staffs both.
Firms with public TCPA defense practices
The following firms maintain TCPA defense or litigation pages on their own websites or publish regularly on the subject. Descriptions are based on those public materials; the list is in no particular order and is not an endorsement or ranking.
- Troutman Amin LLP. A firm led by Eric Troutman that focuses heavily on TCPA defense and compliance and runs the TCPAWorld blog.
- Womble Bond Dickinson. Describes a TCPA litigation defense and compliance practice.
- Holland & Knight. Lists a dedicated TCPA Class Action Litigation practice.
- Kelley Drye. Maintains a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Defense practice page and publishes on TCPA litigation issues.
- Manatt. Describes a TCPA compliance and class action defense practice and publishes TCPA updates under the TCPA Connect name.
- Polsinelli. Lists a Telephone Consumer Protection Act litigation practice.
- Snell & Wilmer. Maintains a TCPA service page.
- Squire Patton Boggs. Lists a Telephone Consumer Protection Act defense practice and publishes through its TCPA practice group.
- Sheppard Mullin. Lists a TCPA practice area alongside its class action defense group.
For a broader directory of attorneys who defend TCPA cases, the resource tcpadefenseattorneys.net collects firms by practice and region.
What happens in the first weeks after a suit or demand
Whoever a business hires, the early steps tend to look similar, and doing them promptly makes counsel’s job easier:
- Preserve records. Call logs, text logs, dialer settings, consent records, opt-out records and vendor contracts should be held, not overwritten.
- Find the consent trail. Where, when and how did the number enter your system? Lead-source data and web-form captures often decide these cases.
- Check the plaintiff’s history. Court-record searches and litigator databases can show whether the plaintiff or their attorney has filed similar claims before.
- Pull vendor agreements. If a lead vendor or calling partner sent the messages, indemnity terms matter.
- Stop contact. Suppress the number across every channel and system right away.
Reducing the odds of the next lawsuit
Once a case is resolved, most companies tighten their process. Common steps include scrubbing against the National Do Not Call Registry at least every 31 days, querying the FCC’s Reassigned Numbers Database before contacting older numbers, honoring opt-outs within the FCC’s 10-business-day window, and screening lists against known TCPA filers. A sample list and demo scrub from TCPALitigatorList.com is one way to see how many known litigators are sitting in a current contact file before the next campaign goes out.
The lawyer question and the prevention question are connected. Good counsel can defend a case; good controls reduce how many cases there are to defend.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Consult qualified TCPA counsel about your specific situation. Disclosure: this publication has a business relationship with TCPALitigatorList.com. Vendor details are drawn from each company’s public materials as of November 2026.
