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.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

Blurred view through glass of a meeting in a sunlit office.

Certum Publishes Model Brief Against Disclosure of Litigation Funding

By Certum Team • January 12, 2026
Litigation finance has become an essential tool for modern litigation strategy — but with its growth has come a wave of discovery requests seeking information about funding arrangements. These requests are improper, burdensome, and legally unsupported. To help lawyers and litigants push back with confidence, Certum has released a new Model Brief Opposing Discovery of Litigation Funding—a comprehensive, practitioner-oriented document designed to equip litigators with the strongest arguments, cases, and frameworks available. This publication is now available for free download . The Model Brief is part of Certum’s growing library of thought leadership and practical guidance on litigation finance and insurance. That library includes Certum’s Guide to Litigation Funding and its annual survey of in-house counsel . Across federal and state courts, parties continue to seek discovery into litigation funding sources and materials, often as a tactic rather than a legitimate inquiry into claims or defenses. These efforts raise serious issues: Privilege and work-product concerns Chilling effects on access to justice Attempts to shift focus away from the merits Increased litigation costs and delays Yet for many lawyers, responding to these requests requires reinventing the wheel. Certum’s model brief solves that problem. It provides a structured, persuasive, and research-backed response that can be adapted swiftly to any case. Click here to download the brief.

Will Marra Featured in Bloomberg Article About Litigation Finance Disclosure

By Certum Team • January 6, 2026
Bloomberg recently interviewed Certum Group’s William Marra as part of its coverage of efforts by commercial liability insurers to require the disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements. Marra explained to Bloomberg that “[t]he disclosure of litigation funding risks putting impecunious litigants at a systematic disadvantage in our legal system,” adding mandatory disclosure “can disclose to defendants very valuable information, including who has funding, and critically, who does not have funding.” Marra further responded to the argument that litigation funders might fuel frivolous litigation. “To the contrary, the evidence shows that funders serve as a very effective screen, only backing the most meritorious cases, and if anything, likely resulting in fewer weak cases getting filed,” Marra said. This statements builds on arguments Marra previously advantaged in a Vanderbilt Law Review article about litigation funding.  The Bloomberg article is available here .
Blurred view of a business meeting in progress through a glass door. People are seated around a table.

Certum’s Will Marra Elected to ILFA Board of Directors

By Certum Team • December 17, 2025
Certum’s William Marra has been elected to the Board of Directors of the International Legal Finance Association, the litigation finance industry’s leading advocacy group. Will joins five other new members of ILFA’s Board, including: Marcel Wegmüller, the co-founder and CEO of Nivalion; David Perla, the Vice Chair of Burford Capital; Erik Bomans, the CEO of Deminor Recovery Services; Kacey Wolmer, the CEO of Contingency Capital; Rob Rothkopf, the founder and Managing Partner of Balance Legal Capital. “We are honored to welcome Marcel, David, Erik, Kacey, Rob, and William to ILFA’s Board of Directors,” said Paul Kong, the Executive Director of ILFA. “Each brings exceptional expertise, deep industry insight, and a demonstrated commitment to the responsible growth of legal finance. Their leadership will strengthen ILFA’s work to promote transparency, expand access to justice, and support the continued global development of our industry.” “I am delighted to join ILFA’s Board and assist with its important public policy work,” Will Marra said. “Litigation finance helps level the playing field and ensures cases are resolved based on their merits, not the size of a party’s checkbook. LFA’s advocacy for claimholders who need litigation finance is more important now than ever before.” The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world.