CarGuard Administration TCPA Robocall Class Action Lawsuit, Full Case Breakdown

The CarGuard Administration TCPA class action is a federal lawsuit alleging that CarGuard Administration, Inc., Vehicle Protection Specialists LLC, and AutoProtecht LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making unauthorized automated robocalls to consumers’ cell phones and numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry to sell extended vehicle warranties. The complaint was filed with lead plaintiffs Joseph Barrett and Matthew Silverman, who alleged they received repeated prerecorded calls in early 2020 promoting CarGuard’s services without their consent. No settlement has been reached as of April 2026, and the litigation remains active.

Quick-Facts

Field	Detail
Lead Plaintiffs	Joseph Barrett, Matthew Silverman (Barrett case); Plaintiff Workman (Workman case)
Defendants	CarGuard Administration, Inc.; Vehicle Protection Specialists LLC; AutoProtecht LLC
Case Type	Consumer Protection — Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
Courts	U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Barrett); U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. 2:2023cv00961 (Workman)
Date Filed	April 16, 2020 (Barrett); May 31, 2023 (Workman)
Legal Claim	Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227
Damages Sought	$500–$1,500 per illegal call under TCPA statutory damages
Current Stage	Active litigation; mediation ongoing as of early 2026 — no final settlement publicly announced
Next Scheduled Date	TBD — check court dockets on PACER for latest hearing dates
Settlement Status	No settlement reached as of April 21, 2026
Last Updated	April 21, 2026

Current Status & What Happens Next

• The class action lawsuit remains in active proceedings, with settlement discussions ongoing but no final agreement publicly announced as of early 2026. The case is currently in mediation — a structured negotiation process overseen by a neutral third party — which suggests both sides have acknowledged the risks and costs of taking the matter to a full trial.
• A related case — Baccari v. CarGuard Administration in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:22-cv-01952) — was dismissed in August 2022 after the court ruled the plaintiff lacked standing, because CarGuard had specifically prohibited its authorized sellers from engaging in any form of telemarketing.
• The Workman v. CarGuard case in Arizona (Case No. 2:2023cv00961) was filed May 31, 2023 and remains on the federal docket.

What Is the CarGuard Administration Lawsuit About? Barrett et al. v. CarGuard Administration, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

The lawsuit alleges that telemarketers Vehicle Protection Specialists and AutoProtecht were retained by CarGuard Administration to market CarGuard’s extended warranties, and that this marketing violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) — the federal law that prohibits companies from making automated or prerecorded calls to consumers without prior express written consent. The TCPA covers calls to cell phones, home phones, and any number listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Each unauthorized call can trigger statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 per violation — without requiring proof of financial harm.

Plaintiff Barrett alleged that his cell phone, which was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, was called several times in early March 2020 promoting CarGuard’s products, and that the calls displayed patterns consistent with a predictive dialer — a system that transfers calls to a live operator once a human answers. Plaintiff Silverman reported a similar experience in late January 2020, ultimately receiving email correspondence from domains associated with both Vehicle Protection Specialists and AutoProtecht.

Related article: Novartis Tasigna (Nilotinib) Products Liability Lawsuit, Full Case Breakdown Atherosclerosis Claims

A notable legal theory in the case is vicarious liability — the plaintiffs contended that CarGuard bears responsibility for the actions of its marketing agents, even though CarGuard itself did not directly initiate the calls. This argument is central to whether CarGuard can be held liable alongside its third-party vendors. For broader context on how TCPA vicarious liability works in extended warranty cases, our Guide to TCPA Class Action Lawsuits explains the legal standard courts apply.

Who Is Likely Part of the CarGuard Class?

Class members are defined broadly as any consumer who received an unauthorized automated or prerecorded call promoting CarGuard vehicle service contracts. Consumers who were on the National Do Not Call Registry at the time of the calls receive additional protections under the class definition. The class period covers calls made within the four-year lookback window established by the TCPA statute of limitations.

• You may be a class member if you received an automated or prerecorded call promoting CarGuard or extended vehicle warranty services without giving prior written consent.
• You may be a class member if your cell phone number or home phone number was on the National Do Not Call Registry when CarGuard-affiliated callers contacted you.
• You may be a class member if you received multiple robocalls from Vehicle Protection Specialists or AutoProtecht promoting CarGuard products between approximately 2020 and 2024.
• You may not qualify if you previously provided express written consent to receive telemarketing calls from CarGuard or its authorized partners.

If you are unsure whether you are a class member, contact a consumer protection attorney for a free case review. Many TCPA attorneys work on a contingency basis — meaning no upfront fees.

What Is at Stake in This Lawsuit?

Under the TCPA, consumers who received illegal robocalls from CarGuard or affiliated companies may be entitled to $500 to $1,500 per illegal call as statutory damages, with no requirement to prove actual financial harm. For consumers who received multiple calls — which many plaintiffs allege — the potential damages per person can add up significantly.

The class action alleges that CarGuard Administration, Vehicle Protection Specialists, and AutoProtecht violated the TCPA by making unauthorized automated calls to consumers’ cell phones to sell extended vehicle warranties. If the court certifies the class and the defendants lose at trial — or agree to a settlement — CarGuard and its co-defendants could face a total damages pool in the millions. 

CarGuard has consistently denied direct responsibility for the calls. CarGuard specifically prohibits sellers authorized to sell its products from engaging in any form of telemarketing — an argument that succeeded in getting the Baccari case dismissed in Pennsylvania in 2022 but has not resolved all pending actions.

What Happens Next in This Case?

The case is currently in mediation, and both sides have been engaged in structured settlement negotiations. If mediation produces a settlement agreement, the court will review it for preliminary approval — after which class members would receive notice and the opportunity to file claims, opt out, or object.

If mediation fails, the case would proceed toward class certification — where the court decides whether the claims of thousands of consumers can be litigated together as a single class action. After certification, the case would move into full discovery and potentially trial.

Key dates to monitor:

• Next mediation session: TBD — not publicly confirmed
• Class certification motion deadline: TBD — pending on court scheduling order
• Trial date: TBD — not yet set; depends on mediation outcome
• TCPA statute of limitations: Four years from the date of the last illegal call received

Consumers who believe they received illegal calls should monitor case developments through court dockets or consumer law news sources. Filing complaints with the FTC, FCC, and your state attorney general creates a documented record that supports regulatory action and strengthens the overall case.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who filed the CarGuard lawsuit and why?

 Lead plaintiffs Joseph Barrett and Matthew Silverman filed the class action on April 16, 2020, alleging that CarGuard’s marketing partners — Vehicle Protection Specialists LLC and AutoProtecht LLC — called them without consent on numbers registered on the National Do Not Call Registry to promote CarGuard’s extended vehicle warranty products.

2. What court is handling this case?

 The primary class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. A related case, Workman v. CarGuard Administration Incorporated, was filed on May 31, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. 2:2023cv00961.

3. What is the current status of the CarGuard case? 

As of early 2026, the lawsuit remains in active proceedings with settlement discussions ongoing but no final agreement publicly announced. The case is currently in mediation. No settlement administrator or claim website has been established yet.

4. How much can class members receive?

 Under the TCPA, consumers who received unauthorized robocalls may be entitled to $500 to $1,500 per illegal call as statutory damages — with no requirement to prove actual financial harm. Final amounts in any settlement would depend on the total fund and number of valid claimants.

5. Can I read the court documents?

 Yes. Court filings for the Arizona case (No. 2:2023cv00961) are available through the federal court’s PACER system at pacer.gov. A PACER subscription is required. The Massachusetts case filings are also available through PACER using the case information above.

6. Did CarGuard win any of these lawsuits? 

Yes, in one instance. The Baccari v. CarGuard Administration case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was dismissed in August 2022, with the court ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing because CarGuard had contractually prohibited its sellers from engaging in telemarketing. However, other cases remain active and have not been dismissed.

7. Do I need a lawyer to participate in this class action? 

No. If a settlement is reached, class members who fit the definition will receive a notice in the mail or by email with instructions to file a claim — no lawyer required. However, many TCPA attorneys take robocall cases on a contingency basis, meaning you pay no upfront fees, and they only collect if you recover compensation.

8. What is the TCPA and why does it apply here? 

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, is a federal law that prohibits companies from making automated or prerecorded calls to consumers without prior express written consent. The TCPA violation allegations against CarGuard are specific: consumers across multiple states reported receiving automated calls warning them that their vehicle warranty was expiring — calls that were prerecorded, made without consent, and in many cases placed to numbers registered on the National Do Not Call list.

Sources & References

• CourtListener / Justia Docket: Workman v. CarGuard Administration Incorporated, Case No. 2:2023cv00961, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
• PACER: Barrett et al. v. CarGuard Administration, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
• Federal Trade Commission robocall enforcement: ftc.gov/robocalls
• Federal Communications Commission TCPA information: fcc.gov/consumers/guides/stop-unwanted-robocalls-and-texts

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against official court dockets on PACER and CourtListener on April 21, 2026. Last Updated: April 21, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Information about ongoing legal cases is based on publicly available court records and verified public sources. Allegations described in this article have not been proven in court. For advice regarding a particular legal situation, consult a qualified attorney.