150 Ringless Voicemails Pitching Debt Relief: Nashville Federal Judge Lets Robocall Class Action Move Forward

October 6, 2026
Posted by AmyGinsburg

If you have money troubles, your phone probably knows it. Prerecorded “loan offers” and debt-relief pitches are among the most common robocalls. Many now arrive as ringless voicemails: messages dropped straight into your voicemail box without the phone ever ringing.

On October 2, 2026, a federal judge in Nashville allowed a consumer’s class action over exactly these messages to move forward. The case is Durham v. Clarity Debt Resolution, Inc. and Aspire Law Group, PLLC, No. 3:26-cv-00111 (M.D. Tenn.). The decision is an early-stage ruling, not a final judgment, but it settles some arguments that telemarketers often raise against consumers.

What the lawsuit alleges

According to the complaint, as described in the court’s opinion, Middle Tennessee resident Jessica Durham received an unspecified number of calls and more than 150 ringless voicemails on her cell phone between September 2025 and early February 2026. She says she never consented to any of them. The messages used the “same prerecorded pitch” for debt-relief and loan-related services and came from rotating phone numbers.

Durham answered one call and returned three voicemails. Each time, she says, she was routed to a company affiliated with Clarity Debt Resolution (operating under names like Alliant Solution Group, Reliant Solution Group and Better Path Lending), pitched a debt-relief program, and emailed a retainer agreement from Aspire Law Group to sign electronically.

On December 4, 2025, Durham gave the defendants’ lawyers written notice of the calls. She alleges the messages kept coming anyway: at least 60 more contacts before she sued, plus another Aspire retainer agreement on December 13, 2025. She is suing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) on behalf of herself and a proposed nationwide class of people who received artificial or prerecorded-voice calls from or on behalf of the defendants.

These are allegations. No court has found that Clarity or Aspire violated the law.

What the judge decided

The defendants asked U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger to dismiss the case. She denied the motion in full:

Calling back is not consent. The defendants argued that by answering a call and returning voicemails, Durham consented to the contact. The court said this “gets things backwards.” The TCPA requires prior express consent, measured at the time of the call. Answering a call and speaking to a representative “does not constitute retroactive consent to have received the call.”
The law firm can be on the hook. Aspire argued that it never made the calls and that nothing tied it to the voicemail campaign. The court found the complaint plausibly alleged that Aspire ratified the calls, because its retainer agreements kept arriving through the telemarketing calls even after it got written notice that the campaign was unlawful.
Naming both companies together is OK at this stage. The court rejected the “group pleading” argument, finding that each defendant had fair notice of the claim.
The class claims stay in. The court refused to strike the class allegations or pause discovery. The initial case management conference is set for November 2, 2026.

Why this matters

Ringless voicemails feel less intrusive than a ringing phone, and some marketers have argued they aren’t “calls” at all. The Federal Communications Commission rejected that argument in 2022. It ruled that a ringless voicemail to a wireless phone is a call made with an artificial or prerecorded voice, so it requires the consumer’s consent under the TCPA.

The TCPA lets consumers sue for $500 per unlawful call, and a court can increase that to up to $1,500 per call if the violation was willful or knowing. With 150+ voicemails at issue for a single person, and a proposed class, the potential exposure adds up quickly. That is why the consent and ratification rulings matter. Companies often hire outside lead generators and then deny responsibility. This ruling shows that a business that keeps accepting the benefits of illegal calls after being told about them may not be able to hide behind its vendors.

There is also a debt-relief warning here. The FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule generally bars companies that sell debt-relief services over the phone from charging fees before they actually settle or change at least one of your debts and you have made a payment under that deal. Unsolicited robocalls promising to wipe out your debt are a red flag. Many people who sign up stop paying their creditors on the program’s advice and end up being sued.

What this means for you

Save everything. Keep the voicemails, take screenshots of your call log, and write down the dates, numbers and company names you hear. The phone numbers often rotate, so the company names and documents you receive (emails, contracts, retainer agreements) are often the best evidence of who is behind the calls.
Calling back doesn’t waive your rights. As this court explained, consent is measured before the call. Returning a voicemail to find out who is calling doesn’t make the earlier calls legal.
Put your stop request in writing. Tell the company to stop, and send written notice too if you can identify it. If the calls continue after that, it can strengthen a claim against everyone who benefits from them. (The FCC also recently revised its opt-out rules. See our earlier post on why calls keep coming after you say stop.)
Don’t sign up for debt relief from a robocall. Don’t pay upfront fees, and don’t stop paying your creditors on a stranger’s advice. If you’re already being sued over a debt, talk to a consumer attorney about your defenses.
Location matters less than you think. The TCPA is a federal law, so it protects consumers in Tennessee, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Wyoming and every other state. Some states, including Florida, have their own telemarketing laws as well.

For more background, see our guide to ringless voicemails and how to sue.

Ginsburg Law Group represents consumers in TCPA robocall cases and defends people sued over consumer debt. If your phone is full of prerecorded voicemails you never agreed to, or a debt-relief program left you facing a lawsuit, contact us for a review.

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Durham v. Clarity Debt Resolution is a pending case; the court ruled only on a motion to dismiss, the allegations have not been proven, and the defendants have not been found liable. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.