A federal court in Illinois has dismissed a prerecorded voice class action lawsuit after finding the plaintiff’s complaint was too vague to proceed.
In Cosenza v. Nice North America, LLC, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois ruled against the plaintiff on the grounds that his amended complaint was legally insufficient.
The complaint alleged only that “Defendant and/or its agents” made the calls, a formulation the court found failed to identify who actually placed them.
The case, David Cosenza v. Nice North America, LLC, No. 1:26-CV-1132, was decided on 4 August 2026, and is reported at 2026 WL 2248829.
The plaintiff, David Cosenza, answered a call on 9 February 2026 and heard a prerecorded pitch for home security and monitoring services.
He noted that the voice sounded artificial, the delivery contained noticeable delays, and nothing in the message was personalised to him specifically.
Cosenza requested to speak to a representative, was connected to a live person, and was told the company’s website was http://www.2gig.com.
The court determined that pleading both vicarious liability and direct liability theories on the same set of facts made neither theory plausible under applicable legal standards.
As legal commentators have noted, saying that a defendant or someone working for it made a call does not actually tell the court who placed it.
The ruling highlights a critical distinction between this case and earlier precedent, with observers pointing to the difference between asking who is calling versus merely asking for a website address.
Legal analysts tracking Telephone Consumer Protection Act litigation have noted that the outcome in Cosenza turned on a single omission during the call itself.
Had the plaintiff asked who was calling rather than simply obtaining a website address, the pleading landscape could have looked considerably different.
The decision underscores the importance of gathering identifying information during an alleged unlawful call before filing a class action complaint.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys pursuing similar prerecorded voice claims will likely take note of this ruling when advising clients on what information to secure during disputed calls.
The case serves as a reminder that vague, alternative pleading between a defendant and unnamed agents will not satisfy federal pleading standards in TCPA class actions.