A federal court in Washington state has dismissed Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against two insurance companies, ruling that the consumer who sued them failed to show why the insurers should be legally responsible for marketing calls placed by a separate company. The May 15, 2026 decision in Sundstrom v. Ocean Reef Media LLC is a notable defense victory — and a useful illustration of a question that affects almost every company that outsources part of its sales or marketing.
What the case was about
The plaintiff alleged he received unwanted marketing calls and sued multiple parties, including two insurers whose products were connected to the calls. He argued the insurers were vicariously liable — that is, legally answerable for the conduct of another company acting on their behalf. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington disagreed. The complaint, the court found, asserted an agency relationship in conclusory terms but did not allege concrete facts showing the insurers directed, authorized, or controlled the calls. Without that factual foundation, the claims could not proceed against them.
The legal background
The TCPA restricts automated and prerecorded telemarketing calls and texts and allows consumers to recover statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 per violation. Crucially, liability is not limited to the company that physically places a call. Under principles the Federal Communications Commission has long recognized, a business can be held responsible for calls made by a third party — a lead generator, a call center, a marketing affiliate — when that third party acts as its agent. Courts look for real evidence of an agency relationship: control over how the calls were made, authorization, or ratification after the fact.
Sundstrom reinforces a trend in which federal courts require plaintiffs to plead those details with specificity rather than naming every company in a marketing chain and hoping to sort out responsibility later in litigation.
Why it matters for businesses
The ruling is encouraging for companies that rely on outside vendors, but it is not a shield. The same facts a court demands from a plaintiff — who controlled the scripts, the calling hours, the contact lists, the technology — are facts a well-prepared plaintiff can often find. A business that genuinely keeps its vendors at arm’s length, with clear contracts assigning compliance responsibility, is well positioned. A business that closely directs a vendor’s every move may still be exposed, regardless of how the contract is labeled.
The practical guidance is straightforward: review vendor agreements so compliance duties are clearly assigned, keep records showing where customer phone numbers and consent came from, and require partners to demonstrate — not merely promise — that they screen their calling lists.
Many businesses now add a final safeguard before any calling or texting campaign goes out: screening their contact lists against a known-litigator database. TCPALitigatorList.com compiles one of the most widely used lists of professional TCPA plaintiffs and serial filers, giving companies a low-cost way to identify and suppress high-risk numbers before a campaign launches rather than discovering them in a demand letter weeks later.
The takeaway
Sundstrom v. Ocean Reef Media shows that courts will not automatically pull every company in a marketing funnel into a robocall lawsuit. But the decision turned on weak pleading, not on any new immunity for brands. For most businesses, the safest path remains the same: structure vendor relationships carefully, document consent, and verify compliance before campaigns go out.
Sources
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath — “Washington Federal Court Dismisses TCPA Claims, Finding Insufficient Allegations of Vicarious Liability”; Sundstrom v. Ocean Reef Media LLC, No. 26-5036, 2026 WL 1361646 (W.D. Wash. May 15, 2026).