A few days ago a reader inadvertently tipped me off to a Family First Life lawsuit.
I was able to independently verify a proposed class-action was filed against Family First Life last October.
The lawsuit was filed in Florida. On February 28th an Amended Complaint was filed, which we’re going over today.
Named Plaintiffs in the proposed class-action are Reynaldo Suescum and Francisco Baserva.
Suescum and Baserva are resident of Florida and have no direct connection to Family First Life.
Family First Life LLC, a Connecticut corporation, is the sole named defendant.
Suescum and Baserva (Plaintiffs) allege Family First Life robocall spammed them late last year.
Plaintiffs allege the calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).
The first robocall instance presented as evidence was an SMS sent to Suescum’s phone on September 29th, 2021.
The SMS, sent from Michelle, who identifies as Family First Life’s hiring manager, pitches Suescum on a $2800 to $3900 per week income.
Suescum responded “Stop” to the message, which was acknowledged by the network.
Plaintiffs point out that Family First Life’s unsolicited SMS does “did not include instructions on how to opt-out of future messages”.
Despite acknowledging no further communication would be sent, Family First Life sent Suescum another unsolicited SMS on October 18th.
This message, sent via a different number, was from “Teri with Family First Life”. No income claims and instructions on how to opt out were provided.
The SMS however was still unsolicited, and a violation of Suescum’s previous opt-out request.
Baserva received two identical SMSs from Family First Life, sent on September 4th and October 8th.
Baserva states his number “has been registered with the National do-not-call registry since December 2017”.
Both Suescum and Baserva allege at no point did they “provide Family First Life with their express consent to be contacted.”
As alleged by the Plaintiffs;
Family First Life’s refusal to honor opt-out requests is indicative of Defendant’s failure to
(1) maintain an internal do not call list; and
(2) inform and train its personnel engaged in telemarketing in the existence and the use of any internal do not call list.
To transmit the above telephonic sales calls, Family First Life utilized a computer software system that automatically selected and dialed Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ telephone numbers.
Family First Life’s use of automated, instantaneous opt-out confirmations show that Family First Life has the capability of immediately and easily complying with Suescum’s opt-out requests and opt-out requests from putative class members.
Despite these technologically advanced capabilities, Family First Life ignored opt-out requests and instead committed themselves to an unrelenting text message marketing campaign that was poorly supervised.
The Plaintiff’s proposed class-action seeks to establish three classes:
- anyone in Florida who didn’t consent;
- anyone in the US who in the past four years continued to be contacted by Family First Life after opting out; and/or
- anyone in the US who was contacted in the past four years and has their number on the National Do Not Call registry.
Plaintiffs believes the class, if certified, will “number in the several thousands, if not more”.
Upon information and belief, Defendant has placed automated calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to thousands of consumers throughout the United States without their prior express consent, to thousands of consumers who had already revoked consent, and to consumers whose numbers were registered on the National do-not-call registry.
The members of the Classes, therefore, are believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at this time and can only be ascertained through discovery.
If class certification is granted, Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, orders certifying Family First Life’s violations of FTSA and TCPA, an injunction prohibiting further violations and costs.
Going after Family First Life for illegally contacting consumers is interesting, seeing as leads is a major component of its business model.
Family First Life’s basic business model is sign up, purchase leads and sell life insurance policies.
That’s from BehindMLM’s Family First Life review, published November 2021.
You can see this in the marketing SMSs left (“a surplus of leads”), as well as in Family First Life’s own marketing.
Interestingly, SMS leads weren’t mentioned when I was researching Family First Life for our review.
In any event, if Family First Life are selling unsolicited leads to affiliates en masse, that’s potentially a violation of the FTC Act at a federal level.
On March 4th Family First Life sough an extension of time to file a reply to the Amended Complaint.
The motion was granted later the same day, giving Family First Life till April 13th.
I’ve added the Family First Life class-action to BehindMLM’s calendar. Stay tuned for updates as we track the case.
Update 9th May 2022 – As of May 2022 the Family First robocall class-action has been referred to mediation.
A 2024 jury trial date has also been scheduled.