November 7, 2022

One Last Bite at the Apple: ViSalus and the $925 million TCPA judgment

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter


Ross Weiner

|

November 7, 2022

Many ink barrels have been spilled on the risks posed by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).  For those unaware, the TCPA protects individuals and businesses from those insidious and unwanted robocalls, texts, ringless voicemails, and even faxes (for those who still have a fax machine).  As for phone calls, the statute makes it unlawful for any person to initiate a call using any “automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice” without the “prior express consent” of the recipient.  The recipient of a TCPA-violating call can sue to recover for the greater of actual damages (generally $0) and $500.  At the risk of a spoiler alert, litigants generally seek the $500 per call.  

ViSalus is a multi-level marketing company that sells purported weight-loss products direct to consumers.  Basically, ViSalus signed up customers (i.e., those who purchased the products) as well as promoters (i.e., those who tried to bring in new customers).  As part of the application process, ViSalus asked individuals for their phone numbers, but, critically, did not ask customers for their consent to receive future automated or prerecorded calls.  

Lori Wakefield enrolled as a ViSalus promoter in 2012.  A few months later, Wakefield discontinued her relationship with ViSalus.  Fast forward two years.  As part of a new marketing campaign, ViSalus began reaching out to former promoters.  In April 2015, Wakefield received five prerecorded audio messages from ViSalus on her home phone.   So, Wakefield, having had enough, sued ViSalus.

The district court certified a class of all individuals in the U.S. who received a call from ViSalus, promoting ViSalus’s products or services, featuring an artificial or prerecorded advice, without first obtaining the individual’s express, written consent.  In April 2019, the case went to trial, with Wakefield presenting her case in three days.  ViSalus “declined to put on any evidence of its own, and instead argued in closing that Wakefield had not proven her case by a preponderance of the evidence.”  The jury disagreed, finding ViSalus had placed 1,850,440 calls in violation of the TCPA.  Accordingly, the court ordered ViSalus to pay approximately $925 million in damages.  

On appeal, ViSalus argued, among other things, that the TCPA’s statutory penalty of $500 per violation, in the aggregate, is so “severe and oppressive” that it violates ViSalus’s due process rights.  Without deciding the issue, the Ninth Circuit held that in “certain extreme circumstances,” it is possible for aggregated statutory damages to be subject to constitutional due process limitations. Indeed, the court noted that where “statutory damages no longer service purely compensatory or deterrence goals, consideration of an award’s reasonableness and proportionality to the violation and injury take[] on heightened constitutional importance.”

The Ninth Circuit concluded its decision by ordering the district court to “consider the magnitude of the aggregated award in relation to the statute’s goals of compensation, deterrence, and punishment to the proscribed conduct,” and, once and for all, determine whether the nearly billion-dollar penalty violated ViSalus’s due process rights and, if so, by how much.  

By all accounts, this is ViSalus’s final bite at the apple.  How the district court will rule remains to be seen.

At Risk Settlements, we are the leader in providing comprehensive, alternative litigation strategies, including class action settlement insurance (“CASI”), litigation buyout insurance, judgment preservation Insurance, adverse judgment insurance, litigation funding and claim monetization.  Our team of experienced former litigators, insurance professionals, and risk mitigation specialists helps companies remove the financial and operational volatility arising out of litigation by transferring the outcome risk.  If you have any questions about the ViSalus TCPA matter, or if you have a matter you would like our team to review, please contact us today.

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

By Certum Team March 5, 2026
Above the Law, a leading blog focused on the legal industry, recently highlighted Certum Group’s litigation finance fellowship, noting the opportunity for law students and business students to gain “a four-week, hands-on immersion in what it actually looks like when capital meets complex litigation.” “To succeed, lawyers need to understand not only doctrine but also finance. Law schools are beginning to reflect that shift, and students want to understand it,” Certum’s William Marra told Above the Law. “Our Summer Fellowship is about opening that door for both law and business students, and giving them meaningful exposure to the capital side of litigation.”  Applications for the fellowship are due on March 31, 2026, and should include a resume, law school transcript, and a brief 250-word statement of interest. Applications should be sent to SummerFellowship@CertumGroup.com . Above the Law’s coverage is available here , and Certum’s application page for the fellowship is available here .
By Certum Group March 2, 2026
For the third consecutive year, Certum Group will host one or more summer fellows, introducing accomplished law students and business students to the growing field of litigation finance. The Certum Group Litigation Finance Fellowship provides top law students with an opportunity to gain hands-on experience in the rapidly growing fields of litigation finance and litigation insurance. Fellows will evaluate litigation funding submissions, draft memoranda analyzing legal and damages issues, help structure and negotiate funding agreements, and contribute to marketing and business development initiatives. They will work closely with Certum’s experienced team of litigation finance, litigation insurance, and investment professionals. Throughout the program, Fellows will develop a practical understanding of how claimholders, law firms, insurers, and capital providers assess litigation risk — and how capital can be deployed as a strategic tool in complex disputes. Further information about the fellowship and instructions about how to apply are available here.
By Certum Group February 24, 2026
Columbia Law School’s blog on corporations and the public markets, The CLS Blue Sky Blog, recently featured the scholarly work on litigation finance written by Indiana University Business School Professor Suneal Bedi and Certum’s William C. Marra. In their blog post, Bedi and Marra discuss their article Litigation Finance in the Market Square , which was recently published in the Southern California Law Review. Their work reframes litigation finance as a capital markets innovation rather than solely a civil justice mechanism. While much of the public debate has centered on questions of disclosure, control, and settlement incentives, Bedi and Marra emphasize that legal claims often represent significant but illiquid contingent assets on a firm’s balance sheet. When policymakers regulate litigation finance, they are regulating not just the legal business but the capital markets. And they are regulating capital markets in a way that is more likely to harm small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) while protecting large companies from competition.  The full blog post is available here.