CarGuard Lawsuit Update, TCPA Violations, Court Rulings, and What Consumers Need to Know
CarGuard Administration faces multiple federal lawsuits alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), with the most recent case Fleming v. CarGuard Administration filed in November 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Plaintiffs claim they received unsolicited robocalls promoting extended vehicle warranties despite being registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, with some lawsuits seeking over $8 million in damages. However, CarGuard successfully dismissed one major TCPA class action in August 2022 when a Pennsylvania federal court ruled the plaintiff lacked standing because CarGuard specifically prohibited its third-party marketers from making telemarketing calls.
What Is the CarGuard Lawsuit?
The CarGuard lawsuit refers to multiple consumer and civil lawsuits filed against CarGuard Administration, a company that provides vehicle service contracts commonly known as extended warranties. In April 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against CarGuard Administration, Vehicle Protection Specialists LLC, and AutoProtecht LLC, alleging that telemarketers retained by CarGuard marketed extended warranties in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Attorney Andrew L. Quiat and his wife Jane Keener-Quiat filed a lawsuit in Denver federal court alleging they received 27 robocalls between September 2020 and May 2021, seeking more than $8 million in damages calculated by tripling maximum fines under the Colorado Organized Crimes Act.
Who Are the Defendants?
Primary Defendant:
- CarGuard Administration – A Kansas-based company that offers vehicle service contracts
Co-Defendants in Various Cases:
- Vehicle Protection Specialists LLC
- AutoProtecht LLC
- Direct Marketing Group
- Auto Renewal Services
Additional Litigation: NCWC Inc. filed a separate tortious interference lawsuit against CarGuard in Arizona federal court, alleging CarGuard induced breach of an exclusivity provision in NCWC’s contract with a marketing partner.
What Are the Specific Allegations?
TCPA Violations
The complaint alleges that Barrett’s cell phone, registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, was called several times in early March 2020 promoting CarGuard’s products, with patterns suggesting a predictive dialer that transfers calls to a live operator once a human answers.
The suit alleged CarGuard and two telemarketing companies conspired to use illegal sales tactics through unsolicited and unapproved robocalls, employing spoofing technology that would produce local phone numbers on caller ID to entice recipients to take the call.
Key Allegations:
- Automated and prerecorded calls without prior written consent
- Calls to numbers registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry
- Use of spoofing technology to display false caller ID information
- Failure to honor opt-out requests
Contractual and Marketing Claims
Some consumers allege they were told CarGuard provided comprehensive coverage, only to later discover hidden exclusions, with claims falling under false advertising or misrepresentation laws. A significant portion of complaints involve denied repair claims where consumers say legitimate repairs were rejected without explanation, with cases typically alleging breach of contract.
Tortious Interference Claims
NCWC’s lawsuit claims CarGuard improperly induced POM to breach an exclusivity provision in their contract, with NCWC asserting CarGuard improperly induced POM and other producers to encourage customers to terminate, cancel, or lapse their vehicle service contracts with NCWC.
What Laws Apply to This Case?
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
The TCPA restricts companies from automatically calling, texting, or playing prerecorded messages without prior written consent, with violations subjecting violators to damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per call or text, based on whether conduct was negligent or willful.
TCPA Requirements:
- Prior express written consent for robocalls to cell phones
- Compliance with National Do-Not-Call Registry
- Prohibition on artificial or prerecorded voice messages without consent
- Mandatory opt-out mechanisms
State Consumer Protection Laws
The Quiat lawsuit claims violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) and Colorado Organized Crime Control Act, along with allegations of conspiracy to defraud and civil theft.
Vicarious Liability Principles
FCC rules generally establish that the party on whose behalf a solicitation is made bears ultimate responsibility for any violations, with a 2013 FCC Declaratory Ruling stating a corporation that contracts out its telephone marketing may be held vicariously liable under federal common law principles of agency for violations committed by third-party telemarketers.
Arizona Tortious Interference Law
Under Arizona law, intentional interference by a third party inducing breach of a contract with a definite duration period is actionable even in the absence of malice and even where the motive is self-interest of the third party.
Current Case Status and Recent Rulings
Fleming v. CarGuard Administration (2024) – Virginia
This contract-related case was filed on November 26, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, with the docket last retrieved on January 24, 2025. The case remains in early procedural stages with limited public information available.
Bacarri v. CarGuard Administration (2022) – Pennsylvania – DISMISSED
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed this TCPA class action on August 8, 2022, ruling that plaintiff Anthony Bacarri lacked standing because he failed to meet his burden to produce evidence responding to CarGuard’s factual attack on jurisdiction.
Key Ruling: CarGuard moved to dismiss arguing the conduct of the marketer cannot be fairly traced back to it, presenting a CEO declaration stating CarGuard specifically prohibited sellers from engaging in any form of telemarketing and had no idea calls were placed until after accepting contracts.
Quiat v. Direct Marketing Group et al. (2021) – Colorado – ONGOING
CarGuard filed a motion for partial judgment on claims associated with the Colorado Organized Crimes Act in December 2021, with the motion pending before the court as of February 2022. CarGuard’s attorneys argued the lawsuit is a classic example of shotgun pleading that has been decried as intolerable and an obstruction of justice.
Defense Arguments: CarGuard countered that Keener-Quiat received a prerecorded and autodialed telemarketing call on September 4, 2020, and voluntarily purchased the warranty extension, with attorneys arguing there’s no evidence showing CarGuard and the telemarketers committed fraud.
NCWC Inc. v. CarGuard Admin. (2020) – Arizona – DENIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On October 19, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied CarGuard’s motion for summary judgment in the tortious interference case. The Court found NCWC presents evidence that CarGuard continued to allow POM to sell contracts for CarGuard until at least August or September 2021, despite acquiring actual knowledge of the exclusivity provision upon being served with the lawsuit in August 2020.
Court’s Reasoning: The Court concluded the evidence of CarGuard’s knowledge and intent is sufficient to avoid summary judgment, particularly on the claim for intentional interference with business relationships and expectancies.
Workman v. CarGuard Administration (2023) – Arizona
This case was filed in 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, with the docket last retrieved on January 23, 2024. Current case status and specific allegations are not publicly available in detail.
Legal Precedents in Related Litigation
Standing Requirements in TCPA Cases
The Bacarri decision represents a significant precedent where a defendant successfully challenged Article III standing by presenting direct evidence that it specifically prohibited the conduct at issue and had no knowledge calls were placed.
The case demonstrates that when a contract between the calling party and end seller expressly prohibits alleged calling activity, a fact-based challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on traceability and redressability grounds can dismiss the case at an early stage for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Vicarious Liability for Third-Party Conduct
The plaintiffs claim that even though CarGuard did not make the calls, it is responsible for the actions of third-party vendors, with the TCPA establishing that a business can be found liable if it benefits from illegal telemarketing conducted on its behalf.
Damages in TCPA Litigation
Under the TCPA, consumers may be entitled to $500-$1,500 per illegal robocall received without requirement to prove actual financial damages, with class actions offering lower legal costs and shared resources while individual lawsuits may result in higher per-call awards.
What This Means for the Defendants
CarGuard’s Defense Position
CarGuard Administration has denied any wrongdoing, stating it has always worked to comply with federal and state telemarketing laws and asserting that any improper communications may have been the fault of independent marketing firms. In public statements, the company declares it has implemented stricter compliance protocols through partner audits, consent verification systems, and improved customer-service channels.
Potential Liability Exposure
For TCPA Violations:
- $500 per negligent violation
- $1,500 per willful violation
- Potential class-wide liability for thousands of affected consumers
- Some plaintiffs seeking treble damages under state organized crime statutes, with damage claims exceeding $8 million
For Tortious Interference: NCWC argues breach of contract and tortious interference damages are separate, with courts holding that separate wrongs give rise to separate causes of action and separate damages.
Reputational and Business Impact
Even settled legal disputes can result in loss of brand credibility, with consumers sharing information over the internet and negative publicity spreading rapidly. The cost of non-compliance can include court fines, settlements, legal fees, and loss of future business relationships.
Implications for Consumer Protection Law
Enhanced Compliance Requirements
CarGuard’s lawsuit stands as a reminder for companies in telemarketing or sales that compliance with communication laws is mandatory, requiring businesses to obtain express consent before contacting potential customers and keep detailed records of that consent.
Even outsourcing marketing operations does not negate the requirement to ensure third-party vendors uphold legal and ethical standards, with ignorance of wrongdoing not constituting an affirmative defense under the TCPA.
Industry-Wide Impact
The lawsuit has encouraged numerous warranty providers and telemarketing companies to review their contact strategies, with many now using double-opt-in consent mechanisms, keeping timestamped proof of permissions, using compliance monitoring software, and training employees in ethical marketing standards.
Consumer Rights and Remedies
What Consumers Can Do:
- Register on the National Do-Not-Call Registry
- Document incoming calls with numbers, times, and recorded messages
- Report violations to the FCC or FTC
- Seek legal advice for potential TCPA claims
Statute of Limitations: TCPA claims typically have a four-year statute of limitations from the date of the last illegal call, making documentation of recent calls most important.
Frequently Asked Questions About the CarGuard Lawsuit
Q: What is the current status of the CarGuard lawsuits?
As of 2025, the lawsuit against CarGuard remains active in mediation with settlement discussions ongoing, and while no final judgment has been reached, experts expect that a resolution could involve consumer compensation and stronger compliance measures. Multiple cases are pending in different federal courts.
Q: Who can join the CarGuard class action lawsuit?
Any consumer who received automated or prerecorded warranty calls from CarGuard or its associated marketers without permission may be eligible to join the class action, with those on the National Do-Not-Call list who were still contacted especially protected under the TCPA.
Q: How much compensation can affected consumers receive?
Under the TCPA, consumers may be entitled to $500-$1,500 per illegal robocall received from CarGuard or affiliated companies, with no requirement to prove actual financial damages. Total compensation depends on the number of calls received and whether violations were negligent or willful.
Q: Did CarGuard win any of the lawsuits against it?
Yes, CarGuard successfully obtained dismissal of the Bacarri v. CarGuard class action in Pennsylvania federal court in August 2022, with the court ruling the plaintiff lacked standing because CarGuard proved it specifically prohibited third-party marketers from making telemarketing calls.
Q: What are the main allegations against CarGuard?
The CarGuard lawsuit centers around allegations that CarGuard Administration and its marketing affiliates made unsolicited robocalls and misleading warranty offers to consumers, claiming violations of federal telemarketing laws and deceptive advertising practices.
Q: Is CarGuard still in business?
Yes, CarGuard Administration is a legitimate business that sells vehicle service contracts, and CarGuard has publicly stated it complies with all applicable laws and aims to improve customer experience. The company continues operations while defending ongoing litigation.
Q: How can I verify if I received calls from CarGuard?
Cell phone providers can often provide call logs, and even general recollection of receiving multiple robocalls may be sufficient for TCPA claims. Document all calls with dates, times, phone numbers, and message content.
Q: What other companies are named in CarGuard-related lawsuits?
Vehicle Protection Specialists and Auto Protehct are also named in the lawsuit, along with numerous other extended warranty telemarketers using similar tactics.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information about the CarGuard lawsuit and should not be considered legal advice. If you believe you have been affected by illegal robocalls or have questions about your specific situation, consult with a qualified attorney who specializes in consumer protection law or TCPA litigation. Case outcomes may vary based on individual circumstances and jurisdiction.
Last Updated: January 2025
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah