Jones v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, 639 F.Supp.3d 537

Plaintiff Keyonna Jones, a Maryland resident whose number is on the National Do Not Call Registry, received a prerecorded telemarketing call on March 25, 2022 seeking to qualify her for Mutual of Omaha insurance.
After interacting with the prerecorded message, Jones was transferred to Eric Chambers, who identified himself as a Mutual of Omaha employee; the call-back number given was associated with Mutual of Omaha.
Jones alleges Mutual of Omaha hired third-party telemarketers to solicit customers, provided instructions on call volume and states to call, and expressly authorized calls into Maryland.
Plaintiff claims the third party used prerecorded calls without consent and that Mutual of Omaha exercised (or had the right to exercise) control over the telemarketing campaign, creating vicarious liability under the TCPA by actual authority and ratification theories.
Mutual of Omaha moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2)) and failure to state a TCPA claim (Rule 12(b)(6)); the court denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction (specific)	Maryland has specific jurisdiction because the allegedly tortious call was received in Maryland and was made by Mutual of Omaha's agent directed at Maryland residents.	Mutual of Omaha argued the court lacks personal jurisdiction over a Nebraska company for calls made by a third party.	Court: Specific jurisdiction exists; plaintiff made a prima facie showing via agency allegations tying the calls to Mutual of Omaha and the contacts arose from the conduct directed at Maryland.
Vicarious liability — actual authority	Jones alleges Mutual of Omaha controlled or had the right to control the telemarketer (could prohibit prerecorded calls; set call volume and target states), supporting agency/actual authority.	Mutual of Omaha contends plaintiff fails to plausibly allege it controlled the manner and means of the telemarketing campaign.	Court: Denied dismissal — allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to plausibly allege actual authority (prima facie showing).
Vicarious liability — ratification	Jones alleges Mutual of Omaha accepted business generated by the calls (issuing policies), which could constitute ratification of the telemarketer’s acts.	Mutual of Omaha argues there are no allegations it knew prerecorded calls were used, undermining ratification.	Court: Did not decide ratification; unnecessary because actual authority claim sufficed to survive dismissal.

Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum contacts due process standard)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and reasonable anticipation of being haled into court)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits on general jurisdiction; "at home" forum concept)
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (contacts must show strong relationship among defendant, forum, and litigation for specific jurisdiction)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (contacts must be defendant’s own connection with the forum)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (specific jurisdiction confined to controversies connected to the forum)
Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC, 925 F.3d 643 (4th Cir. 2019) (agency principles and vicarious liability under TCPA)
Hodgin v. UTC Fire & Sec. Am. Corp., 885 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2018) (TCPA vicarious liability requires agency relationship)
Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2014) (vicarious liability for TCPA violations governed by federal common-law agency principles)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive Rule 12(b)(6))