ARTICLE
22 July 2026

AI Robocalls, TCPA, And Texas Converge In Class Action

SM
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Contributor

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more than 1,200 lawyers located in 16 offices worldwide, our client-centered approach is grounded in nearly a century of building enduring relationships on trust and collaboration. Our broad and diversified practices serve global clients—from startups to Fortune 500 companies—at every stage of the business cycle, including high-stakes litigation, complex transactions, sophisticated financings and regulatory issues. With leading edge technologies and innovation behind our team, we pride ourselves on being a strategic partner to our clients.
A federal class action lawsuit challenges the use of AI-generated voices in marketing calls made by law firms seeking mass-tort clients, alleging violations of both federal TCPA regulations and multiple Texas state laws. The plaintiff claims she received unwanted automated calls with artificial voices despite repeatedly declining and never providing consent, raising critical questions about AI voice technology compliance in legal marketing.
United States Texas Consumer Protection
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Cannabis & Hemp and Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)

A new class action lawsuit filed in federal court under both the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and a similar Texas state law takes issue with AI-generated voices in marketing calls. The case was brought against three law firms that used AI voices to call potential mass-tort clients. As a reminder and as we have written previously, the FCC’s position is that an AI-generated or AI-cloned voice counts as an “artificial voice” under the TCPA.

In this case, the AI agent asked individuals about their possible injuries. According to the recently filed suit, the plaintiff alleged the messages she received did not apply to her. And, that she replied “no” multiple times but nevertheless, the AI agent continued to attempt to sell her legal services. She also stated in the complaint that she had not provided consent to receive the call and that the call was made using an automated dialer and contained an “artificial voice.” She argued that this violated four different laws. 

First, she alleged a violation of TCPA, which requires consent to receive calls that contain artificial voices. The FCC has confirmed that AI voices count as "artificial voices" under the statute. Second, she alleged violations of a similar Texas law, Texas’s “mini-TCPA”. Third, she alleged that the three law firms failed to register to make automated sales calls, in violation of the Texas telephone-solicitor registration statute. That law requires registering before making solicitation calls. Finally, she alleged a violation of a Texas law that prohibits lawyers from soliciting legal employment by telephone.

Putting it Into Practice: This case is still pending. However it is a reminder that plaintiff’s attorneys are not hesitating to use state laws when bringing suit for alleged call violations. Thus, even where we may see some reprieve under TCPA interpretations, that does not mean that the lawsuits will necessarily slow down. Now is a good time to review compliance with call laws if you are using AI agents as part of your call programs.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More