Quick Answer: Robert Lasorsa sued ClearOne Advantage, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227. The complaint alleges that ClearOne Advantage sent multiple unauthorized telemarketing text messages to Lasorsa’s cellular phone, violating his privacy rights and the National Do Not Call Registry. Lasorsa seeks injunctive relief to stop these practices, statutory damages for himself and the class, and any other legal remedies available. This is a legal filing containing allegations; no finding of liability has been made.
Case Update — September 29, 2026
2026-09-23: Doc 5 — NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: 1 Complaint filed by Robert Lasorsa, 2 Summons Submitted filed by Robert Lasorsa. Documents are not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) – Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type. No further action is required. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (VSB) (Entered: 09/23/2026) — Link
2026-09-23: Doc 2 — SUMMONS Submitted by Robert Lasorsa. (Berman, Christopher) (VSB) (Entered: 09/23/2026) — Link
2026-09-23: Doc 3 — Filing fee paid, receipt number AAZDC-26161704. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Krissa M. Lanham. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-26-06802-PHX-KML. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (VSB) (Entered: 09/23/2026) — Link
2026-09-23: Doc 4 — Summons Issued as to ClearOne Advantage LLC. (VSB). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select “Document and stamps” or “Document and comments” for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 09/23/2026) — Link
2026-09-23: Notice of Deficiency (Text Only) — Link
2026-09-25: Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Christopher E Berman on behalf of Plaintiff Robert Lasorsa. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) — Link
2026-09-25: Doc 6 — ORDER – The parties are advised of the following preliminary policies and procedures that will govern these proceedings. Plaintiffs must promptly serve a copy of this order on defendant and file a notice of service with the Clerk. Unless the court orders otherwise, on December 28, 2026, the Clerk shall terminate without further notice any defendant in the United States that has not been served pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See document for further details. Signed by Judge Krissa M Lanham on 9/25/2026. (MCB) (Entered: 09/25/2026) — Link
2026-09-25: Remark re Pro Hac Vice Motion — Link
Primary Source: View Original Complaint (PDF)
Facts as Alleged in the Complaint
The following is taken verbatim from the complaint filed in federal court. These are allegations; no finding of fact has been made.
The Parties
- Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this action, was a resident of Mahoning County, Ohio.
- Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual and the sole subscriber of the residential telephone number ending in 3784 (the “3784 Number”) that received Defendant’s telemarketing text messages.
- Defendant is an Arizona limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 410 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 1000, Tempe, AZ 85281. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
- Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the United States, including the State of Arizona.
- Unless otherwise indicated, the use of Defendant’s name in this Complaint includes all agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, vendors, and insurers of Defendant.
Factual Allegations
- Defendant is a limited liability company engaged in the sale and marketing of debt consolidation and financial services to consumers, throughout the United States, including the State of Arizona.
- On or about July 2026, Defendant sent or caused to be sent multiple telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff’s 3784 Number, from Defendant’s telephone number (870) 825-2345, as shown below: CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
- Defendant’s text messages were transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, and within the time frame relevant to this action.
- Defendant’s text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in Defendant’s property, goods, or services, i.e., Defendant’s debt consolidation and financial services.
- The information contained in the text messages advertises Defendant’s various services and promotions, which Defendant sends to promote its business. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
- Defendant sent the subject texts from within this judicial district and, therefore, Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred from within this district. Upon information and belief, Defendant caused other text messages to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial district.
- Defendant’s texts were not made for an emergency purpose or to collect on a debt pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B).
- Plaintiff has no existing business relationship with Defendant.
- At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent to be contacted.
- Specifically, Plaintiff never completed any type of form that clearly and conspicuously authorized Defendant to contact Plaintiff’s residential cellular telephone with marketing text messages.
- Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 3784 Number and is financially responsible for it.
- Plaintiff’s 3784 Number is his residential telephone number used for personal purposes. Plaintiff’s 3784 Number is his primary way of being contacted in his home.
- Plaintiff registered his 3784 Number with the National Do Not Call Registry on June 29, 2003, and has been registered at all times relevant to this action.
- The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.”
- The text messages originated from the telephone number (870) 825-2345, a number which upon information and belief is owned and operated by Defendant or on behalf of Defendant. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
- On information and belief, Defendant sought a financial benefit from the telemarketing text messages it placed to Plaintiff and the putative class members, as it attempted to derive business from these messages.
- Defendant’s unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Defendant’s text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily life.
Remedies Sought
- An order certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Class as defined above, and appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the Class and Plaintiff’s counsel as Class Counsel;
- A declaration that Defendant’s practices described herein violate the Telephone
- An injunction requiring Defendant to cease all text message solicitations to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, and to otherwise protect the interests of the
- An award of actual and statutory damages for Plaintiff and each member of the
- Such further and other relief as the Court deems necessary.
About This Coverage
I monitor federal court cases involving debt relief companies as an educational resource for consumers, other companies in the industry, and regulators. This project began on February 27, 2026, and covers cases filed on or after February 20, 2026. Cases filed before that date are not included. I am currently monitoring 334 companies in the debt relief space.
I report on all cases I am able to monitor — no company is singled out or targeted. The goal is comprehensive, fair coverage that helps consumers understand the legal landscape.
Important: The information on this page comes directly from court documents. I present the allegations exactly as stated in those filings — I do not interpret, summarize, or paraphrase complaint language, as doing so could introduce unintended bias. These are allegations, not findings of fact. Every defendant is presumed innocent and has the right to contest the claims in court. A lawsuit is not a finding of wrongdoing.
You can view the full docket at CourtListener.
Are you a party to this case? I welcome statements, corrections, and updates from any party — plaintiff, defendant, or their counsel. If you'd like to add context or a statement for readers, please contact me directly. I will publish it here.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Defendant been found liable in this case?
No. This is a complaint — a legal filing that contains allegations made by Plaintiff. Defendant has not been found liable for any wrongdoing. A finding of liability requires a court proceeding where evidence is presented and evaluated by a judge or jury.
What does the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibit?
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227) prohibits auto-dialed calls, pre-recorded messages, and unsolicited text messages to cell phones without prior express written consent. It also protects numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Violations carry statutory damages of $500 per call, tripled to $1,500 for willful violations.
The Daily Money Brief — Free, at 10 AM
Money you may be owed, scams to dodge, and the fine print decoded — the consumer money news that affects your wallet, every weekday.
What is the current status of this case?
This case was recently filed. See the CourtListener docket linked at the bottom of this page for the complete filing record. This page is updated automatically when new documents are filed.
Where can I read the full complaint against Defendant?
The full complaint is publicly available on CourtListener. The Facts as Alleged section above reproduces the complaint’s factual allegations verbatim. The complete case record, including all filings, is available through the docket link at the bottom of this page.
Source: CourtListener. Information on this page is taken verbatim from the court complaint. These are allegations only; no finding of fact has been made.
Part of the Federal Lawsuits Database
This case is one of 363 federal court cases involving debt relief companies tracked at Federal Lawsuits Against Debt Relief Companies. Browse by company type, legal claim, or alleged conduct to identify industry-wide patterns.
Are you dealing with a debt relief company? If you're considering working with a debt relief company or have already signed a contract, use my free Find Your Path tool to get personalized guidance on your situation.
