Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, CONSUMER PROTECTION—7th Cir.: Allstate not liable for robocalls under agency theory, (Jun 26, 2026)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The consumer failed to allege that the insurance company is liable for the unsolicited robocalls under any theory of agency law, including a subagency theory.

Concluding that insurance company Allstate cannot be held liable under any theory of agency law for calls made by a telemarketing company, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held a consumer’s lawsuit against Allstate alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) cannot proceed. In reversing the decision of the federal district court in Illinois, the federal appeals court held that the consumer failed to show that the insurance company is liable for the unsolicited robocalls under any theory of agency law, including a subagency theory (Hossfeld v. Allstate Insurance Co., Nos. 25-1518 & 25-1672 (7th Cir. Jun. 24, 2026)).

A consumer filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in the federal district court in Illinois against Allstate under the TCPA’s private remedy provision, alleging the insurance company failed to maintain a sufficient internal do-not-call policy and impermissibly called him despite his no-call requests. placed 12 calls to the consumer advertising automobile insurance policies from Allstate Insurance Company. Months prior, the consumer had asked Allstate not to place any marketing calls to his phone number. The consumer claims that the insurance company is vicariously liable for calls made by a telemarketing company, Atlantic, because Atlantic was Allstate’s subagent acting with actual authority or, alternatively, because Allstate effectively authorized Atlantic’s calls under apparent authority and ratification theories. Atlantic Telemarketing Center.

The federal district court denied the consumer’s motion for class certification, concluding that the consumer failed to prove that his proposed class was sufficiently numerous to justify a class action. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the consumer and against allst. Allstate appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and the consumer appealed the denial of class certification.

Agency theory. The Seventh Circuit held that the consumer failed to allege that the insurance company is liable for the unsolicited robocalls under any theory of agency law. For an agent to have express actual authority, the principal “must have directly spoken or written to” or otherwise acted toward the agent instructing him to take the specified action. In hit scase, the undisputed facts show Transfer Kings had neither express nor implied actual authority to appoint Atlantic as a subagent Hossfeld sued Allstate for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), which requires companies to honor a robocalls and other telemarketing practices, Congress passed the TCPA.

Class certification. The Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court that the consumer failed meet the requirements for class certification. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the consumer’s class certification motion for lack of numerosity. A plaintiff must produce more than “speculation as to the size of the class in order to prove numerosity.” In this case, the consumer identified 33 members of the class, which falls easily below the 40-member benchmark. The consumer failed to meet his burden by showing the impracticability of joinder. Hossfeld failed entirely to make any argument as to impracticability, and the court was not required to construct legal arguments on his behalf.

The Case is Nos. 25-1518 & 25-1672.

Judge: Eve, A.

Attorneys: Alexander H. Burke (Burke Law Offices, LLC) for Robert Hossfeld. James E. Tysse (Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP) for Allstate Insurance Co.

Companies: Allstate Insurance Co.

Cases: ConsumerProtection IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews