Plaintiffs for the settlement class assert claims which involve common issues of fact and law that can be addressed on a classwide basis, such as whether Agentra or its agents or vendors violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by calling cell phones without permission in order to promote products and services, and, if so, what damages should be awarded as damages.
It’s a broker
Class action lawsuits have been filed against Agentra over its use of telemarketing to promote its products. These suits allege that Agentra and its vendors violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by calling consumers’ cell phones without their permission and selling health insurance and related services such as prescription savings plans, telemedicine and pet insurance policies. One class member alleges having spoken to agentra member services over 20 times throughout four years membership as well as having used her Member Portal frequently; additionally she holds both a limited medical plan as well as RxAssist prescription savings program membership plans.
Plaintiffs assert that the class is objectively defined using an objective mechanism and includes all those who were contacted without consent by an Agentra agent or vendor and purchased an Agentra product as a result of that contact, seeking damages under TCPA.
The complaint indicates that this class is large enough to ensure an equitable settlement for its entire membership, as well as having various questions of law and fact in common that could be resolved in one trial, such as whether defendant devices constitute ATDS under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and whether Agentra was vicarious liable. Furthermore, there are numerous similarities among each member’s claims for compensation in this particular instance.
It’s a service
Agentra is a service company that specializes in selling insurance products and providing administrative support for those it distributes. Operating within an industry that may require professional licenses, bonds or registration is part of its business operations, with clients such as independent insurance agents, vendors and carriers as clients.
In this case, the proposed class includes all persons in the United States who were contacted between May 8, 2014 and February 1, 2020 by Alexander Glynn, Ann Fils, Charles Donisi, Jacon Mcleod, Jason Espinoza, Kristina Calo, Scott Shapiro, Steve Guerrero, Witfield Jean-Baptiste or Theresa Jones to promote or sell Agentra products (such as prescription savings plans) on their cellular telephones while registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. It also includes persons whose numbers were purchased by third parties (such as telemarketer or company) to use for marketing purposes.
Agentra is a service company offering health, dental and vision insurance to consumers at competitive prices with wide ranging benefits. Their website makes enrolling easy – as is mobile device support!
It’s a platform
Agentra provides access to a broad selection of insurance products and services, including prescription savings, telemedicine and dental and vision coverage. Their member portal enables members to view their benefits and billing information, call customer service or check the status of their order if needed; should she not have received her card by then, call their customer support center immediately so a replacement card can be issued to her.
Class claims in this lawsuit allege that Agentra and third parties contacted class members without their permission by calling their cellular phone numbers promoting Agentra products while they were listed on the Do Not Call Registry, violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and seeking damages under that statute. Class certification may not always be automatic in such cases but will often depend on questions of law and fact that are common across class members rather than individual issues being presented individually to judges for adjudication.
One factor contributing to approval is that the settlement class was carefully defined with objective criteria. Based on Agentra’s own business records, an objective mechanism was employed to ascertain whether putative class members fall within its definition. Furthermore, Agentra submitted for in camera review a Declaration as well as confidential financial data that reflect accurately its current financial state; these details demonstrate that substantial losses would likely arise should the Court approve of this settlement agreement.
It’s a product
As a company, Agentra provides products such as dental and vision insurance as well as telemedicine coverage for agents. Furthermore, the company operates in an industry which requires professional licensing, bonding and registration – its website contains details about these offerings as well as information on how to reach its customer service representatives.
The proposed class includes individuals to whom Agentra or third parties acting on its behalf made non-emergency phone calls that promoted its products, services or discounts despite listing on a National Do Not Call Registry list. Plaintiffs allege these calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because they did not give consent for these communications and purchased an Agentra product as a result.
The Court finds that the class definition meets objective criteria of being an efficient way of identifying putative class members and finds this an appropriate case for class certification. The settlement class is expansive, including anyone who purchased an Agentra product after being called by an Agentra agent or vendor on their cell phone while listed with the National Do Not Call List; each member would be eligible to substantial damages; therefore the seventh Girsh factor supports approval of this settlement agreement.