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

People in a meeting room, sitting around a table, brainstorming. Glass wall reflects outside.
By Certum Group Team December 4, 2025
Certum Group, a leader in litigation risk management, is pleased to announce the launch of Certum Legal Solutions (CLS), a managed services organization (MSO) that helps law firms handle their day-to-day operations. CLS expands Certum Group’s platform beyond litigation finance and insurance into technology-driven operational support for law firms. With this launch, Certum is now the only provider to offer funding, insurance, and operational services through a single, integrated platform. Built by trial lawyers and experienced legal operations professionals, CLS delivers end-to-end support for mass tort and single-event litigation practices, including intake, pre-litigation investigation, plaintiff discovery support, settlement claims processing, and client communications. The CLS platform leverages proprietary and heavily customized tools such as integrations for rapid medical record collection, a mobile client app, automated document workflows, electronic signature systems, and an in house call center to streamline case management and boost efficiency. CLS currently manages thousands of cases for law firm clients across the United States and is designed to scale quickly to meet changing caseloads while maintaining control and delivering a consistent client experience. “Our clients have long relied on Certum to mitigate litigation risk and financial risk; with Certum Legal Solutions, we can now mitigate operational risk as well,” added David Diamond, Managing Director at Certum Group. “Because CLS is built the way trial lawyers think about building cases, from intake to resolution, firms get a turnkey, technology forward solution that measurably improves efficiency and outcomes,” said Asim M. Badaruzzaman, CEO of Certum Legal Solutions. CLS originated from a services operation launched in 2024 and was acquired by Certum Group in 2025. The new business line uses a customized fee for service model that aligns pricing with the scope and value of each engagement, allowing firms to avoid the capital costs and staffing requirements of building these capabilities themselves. While the initial focus is on mass tort and single event, Certum plans to extend CLS capabilities to additional practice areas over time, further expanding the company’s comprehensive approach to funding, insurance, and operational support. For more information, please contact: David Diamond Managing Director, Certum Group ddiamond@certumgroup.com Asim M. Badaruzzaman CEO, Certum Legal Solutions asim.badaruzzaman@certumlegalsolutions.com
A gavel rests on top of a stack of US one-hundred dollar bills.
By Kirstine Rogers November 6, 2025
The recent legislative push—then retreat—to impose a tax on litigation funding returns didn’t change the law, but it clarified what’s at stake. It shined a spotlight on the solution that litigation funding provides for the legal industry and to intellectual property owners. Litigation finance doesn’t present a taxation loophole to close. It’s a process that allows plaintiffs with strong claims—and limited resources—to make it to the courthouse steps. In the IP world, where the costs of litigation can eclipse the means of most inventors, startups, and universities, non-recourse litigation funding often is the only way to level the playing field. The investment risks for funders are high; the returns shouldn’t be penalized. The right policy response isn’t punitive taxation or blanket disclosure of sensitive funding terms, but acceptance of funding as a necessary tool and tailored transparency under the court’s supervision, so that financial disparity doesn’t become a tactical weapon.  The goal is simple: Keep the courthouse doors open while maintaining fairness and integrity in the adversarial system.
Statue of Lady Justice holding scales and sword, blindfolded.
By W. Tyler Perry October 23, 2025
It feels like every couple of weeks an article appears lamenting the rise of litigation finance as the death of capitalism and the birth of something monstrous. The most recent chorus began over the summer when the CEO of Chubb called litigation finance “ a hidden tax on society ” in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. A month later, the CEO of The Hartford grieved on an investor call that litigation finance has “turned our judicial system into a gambling system.” And just last month, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association ’s Senior Vice President of Federal Government Relations exclaimed: “Too many baseless claims, filed by lawyers motivated by profit are clogging our legal system with unnecessary lawsuits, increasing costs and delaying swift resolution of genuine legal claims.”  As someone who has been a big firm defense lawyer, a small firm plaintiff lawyer, and now a litigation funder, I can confidently say that these arguments fundamentally misunderstand litigation finance and its incentives, while simultaneously conflating the interests of large repeat defendants with those of society writ large.