Easy Peasy: Vicarious Liability Claims Survive Motion to Dismiss in TCPA Suit

Dismissing a TCPA lawsuit early is no small feat. The recent case of Jubb v. CHW Grp., Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59172 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2025), highlights how easily plaintiffs can plead both direct and vicarious liability, keeping businesses entangled in litigation.

Jubb sued CHW Group for alleged TCPA violations, claiming the company either made or authorized unsolicited telemarketing calls. Instead of targeting only CHW Group’s direct actions, Jubb also argued that CHW was responsible for calls made by third-party telemarketers.

To survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs don’t need definitive proof—just a plausible claim that the defendant initiated or controlled the calls. In Jubb, the court found that the plaintiffs provided sufficient details to directly connect CHW Group to the calls in question.

Beyond direct liability, the plaintiffs also alleged vicarious liability, arguing that CHW Group could be held responsible for calls made by third parties under agency theory. To support this claim, the complaint included the following allegations:

• “CHW, or agents acting on its behalf, called [Plaintiffs’] phone numbers soliciting home warranties.”

• “CHW may have hired, encouraged, permitted, and enjoyed the benefits of mass telemarketing by third-party telemarketers that are currently unknown to Plaintiffs and only known to CHW.”

The court determined that these allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

This ruling highlights the (in my opinion) very low bar for pleading vicarious liability. Despite the complaint’s lack of specific third-party company names or concrete details linking CHW Group to third-party calls, the allegations were still enough for the case to move forward.

While CHW Group will have an opportunity to challenge these claims during discovery, this ruling is certainly not an ideal start for its defense.