Alan Grochowski, Sr.: The TCPA Plaintiff Continuing the Fight Against QuoteWizard’s Lead-Gen Machine

 

Alan Grochowski, Sr. is a TCPA class action plaintiff who filed suit against QuoteWizard.com, LLC, the same company that previously paid millions to resolve earlier TCPA litigation involving allegedly unlawful lead-generation practices. Unlike the serial litigators profiled elsewhere in this series, Grochowski is not a high-volume filer, a fake-name user, or a professional plaintiff. He appears to be a legitimate consumer who allegedly received unwanted prerecorded calls and text messages despite his number being listed on the National Do Not Call Registry (DNCR).

The lawsuit, Grochowski v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC (Case No. 9:24-cv-80379), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in early 2024. Grochowski seeks to represent a proposed class of consumers who allegedly received similar unlawful communications.

The case is widely viewed as part of the next major wave of litigation targeting QuoteWizard’s lead-generation system. Legal commentators have noted that Grochowski’s claims build upon many of the same consent and lead-purchase issues raised in the earlier Mantha litigation, where QuoteWizard ultimately paid substantial settlement amounts tied to alleged consent failures.

Who Is Alan Grochowski, Sr.? A Florida Consumer, Not a Serial Litigator

Alan Grochowski, Sr. is a Florida resident who became a named plaintiff in a TCPA class action targeting QuoteWizard.com, LLC. Publicly available information does not indicate that Grochowski has filed dozens of lawsuits or engaged in questionable litigation tactics commonly associated with professional TCPA plaintiffs.

Available records and filings suggest:

• Grochowski is based in Florida and filed suit in the Southern District of Florida.
• He appears to have filed only one major TCPA lawsuit.
• There is no known evidence of fake-name usage, manufactured claims, or deceptive call-prolonging tactics.
• There are no known criminal allegations or judicial warnings tied to his litigation conduct.
• He is acting as a proposed class representative on behalf of consumers who allegedly received unlawful prerecorded calls or DNCR violations.

This sharply distinguishes him from high-volume litigators frequently criticized in TCPA commentary.

Unlike plaintiffs accused of using aliases, bait tactics, or repeated filings across jurisdictions, Grochowski appears to fit the profile of a conventional consumer plaintiff alleging genuine unwanted telemarketing activity.

The Case: Grochowski v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC

Grochowski filed a proposed class action lawsuit against QuoteWizard.com, LLC, a company that connects insurance agents with potential customers through lead-generation marketing systems.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Case No. 9:24-cv-80379.

The core allegations involve:

• National Do Not Call Registry violations
• Alleged prerecorded telemarketing calls
• Alleged unlawful text-message communications
• Questions surrounding purchased leads and consent practices

According to the complaint, QuoteWizard allegedly contacted Grochowski despite his number being registered on the National Do Not Call Registry for the required statutory period.

The lawsuit also alleges that QuoteWizard used prerecorded or artificial voice technology in connection with telemarketing calls without obtaining valid prior express written consent.

The Two Main TCPA Allegations

Grochowski’s lawsuit focuses heavily on two categories of alleged TCPA violations.

National Do Not Call Registry Violations

Grochowski alleges that QuoteWizard contacted consumers whose numbers had already been placed on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Under the TCPA, companies generally cannot place telemarketing calls to numbers listed on the DNCR unless they have obtained valid prior express written consent or qualify for another limited exemption.

The lawsuit argues that QuoteWizard lacked legally sufficient consent to place these calls.

Prerecorded or Artificial Voice Calls

The complaint also alleges that QuoteWizard used prerecorded or artificial voice technology in marketing communications.

Federal law requires prior express written consent before placing prerecorded telemarketing calls to consumers.

Grochowski contends that no such consent existed.

The “Drips” Platform Focus

One of the more technically significant aspects of the litigation involves the alleged use of the “Drips” conversational SMS platform.

Grochowski argues that even if the communications resembled conversational chats or interactive text exchanges, the communications still qualify as automated telemarketing activity governed by the TCPA if proper written consent was never obtained.

This argument reflects a broader litigation trend in which plaintiffs focus less on traditional autodialer hardware definitions and more on the nature and purpose of the communications themselves.

The Proposed Classes

Grochowski seeks certification of multiple proposed classes.

One proposed class includes individuals throughout the United States who allegedly received prerecorded calls on cellular telephones from or on behalf of QuoteWizard during the applicable statutory period.

Another proposed class includes individuals whose residential numbers were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days but who allegedly received more than one solicitation call or text from QuoteWizard within a twelve-month period.

If certified, these classes could dramatically increase QuoteWizard’s potential financial exposure.

The Jurisdictional Ruling: Florida Claims Survive

One of the early rulings in the case addressed personal jurisdiction issues.

The court dismissed claims brought by non-Florida plaintiffs, concluding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over those claims.

However, Grochowski’s Florida-based claims were allowed to proceed.

This ruling illustrates the growing importance of jurisdictional challenges in TCPA class litigation, particularly in nationwide class actions involving out-of-state plaintiffs.

The Connection to the Mantha Litigation

The Grochowski litigation is closely connected to the earlier Mantha v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC case.

Both lawsuits target QuoteWizard’s lead-generation and consent practices.

Both involve allegations that QuoteWizard relied on third-party lead sellers and allegedly inadequate consent disclosures.

Both challenge the validity of purchased-lead consent systems.

The earlier Mantha litigation became nationally significant after the court scrutinized QuoteWizard’s consent evidence and the company later resolved claims through major settlements.

Legal analysts have observed that many of the legal theories advanced in Grochowski’s case mirror arguments that gained traction in the Mantha proceedings.

The “Lead-Gen Meltdown”

Commentators covering TCPA and lead-generation litigation have increasingly described QuoteWizard’s legal troubles as a broader “lead-gen meltdown.”

The company has faced mounting scrutiny over whether the consent attached to purchased leads was legally sufficient under the TCPA.

Across multiple lawsuits, plaintiffs have argued that QuoteWizard relied too heavily on third-party vendors without independently verifying consent quality.

The financial consequences have already been substantial.

Earlier QuoteWizard litigation reportedly resulted in settlements totaling millions of dollars tied to text-message and DNCR-related claims.

The Grochowski case now places additional focus on prerecorded calls and DNCR compliance.

Purchased Leads and the Consent Problem

A central issue in the case involves purchased consumer leads.

QuoteWizard’s general defense position in related litigation has been that third-party lead providers obtained valid consumer consent before the company initiated communications.

Grochowski disputes that claim.

He argues that he never directly provided QuoteWizard with permission to contact him and that purchasing lead data from another company does not automatically create lawful consent.

This issue became particularly significant after earlier QuoteWizard litigation raised serious questions about the reliability of lead-verification systems and consent documentation.

The broader legal takeaway emerging from these cases is increasingly clear:

Buying a lead from another company does not necessarily shield a business from TCPA liability.

Financial Exposure and Potential Damages

If Grochowski succeeds in obtaining class certification and proving liability, QuoteWizard could face substantial statutory damages.

Under the TCPA:

• Standard violations can result in $500 per call or text.
• Willful or knowing violations can result in up to $1,500 per violation.

Because TCPA damages are calculated per communication, large-scale telemarketing campaigns can create enormous aggregate exposure in class-action litigation.

The Grochowski case therefore carries potentially significant financial implications for QuoteWizard and for the lead-generation industry more broadly.

The Shift Away from ATDS Battles

The Grochowski litigation reflects an important evolution in modern TCPA strategy.

Earlier TCPA cases often revolved around whether a dialing system qualified as an “automatic telephone dialing system” under the Supreme Court’s Facebook v. Duguid framework.

That technical fight became increasingly difficult for plaintiffs.

Modern plaintiffs, including Grochowski, are instead focusing on:

• National Do Not Call Registry violations
• Prerecorded or artificial voice communications
• Lack of written consent
• Lead-generation consent failures

These claims frequently avoid the technical complications associated with ATDS litigation and provide a more direct route to liability.

Why the Case Matters for Businesses

The Grochowski litigation offers several important lessons for companies using telemarketing, lead-generation systems, or purchased consumer data.

Verify Consent Independently

Businesses cannot blindly rely on lead vendors. Companies should independently verify how consent was collected and whether disclosures were legally sufficient.

Respect the National Do Not Call Registry

Companies should regularly scrub calling lists against DNCR databases and ensure ongoing compliance procedures are in place.

Prerecorded Calls Require Written Consent

The TCPA imposes strict requirements for prerecorded telemarketing calls. Implied consent or vague disclosure language may not be enough.

One Settlement Does Not End Exposure

Resolving one TCPA case does not eliminate future liability if underlying marketing practices remain unchanged.

Transparency Matters

Courts increasingly scrutinize lead-generation systems that rely on hidden disclosures, unclear consent language, or aggressive data-sharing practices.

How Grochowski Differs from Serial Litigators

Grochowski’s litigation profile differs substantially from the high-volume plaintiffs criticized elsewhere in TCPA commentary.

Unlike serial litigators:

• He appears to have filed only one major TCPA lawsuit.
• There is no evidence of fake-name usage.
• There are no allegations of manufactured claims.
• No fraud counterclaims have been asserted against him.
• There are no known criminal allegations or judicial sanctions tied to his conduct.

Instead, the lawsuit presents Grochowski as a conventional consumer plaintiff alleging genuine unwanted telemarketing activity.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Alan Grochowski, Sr.?

Alan Grochowski, Sr. is a Florida consumer who filed a TCPA class action against QuoteWizard.com, LLC alleging unlawful prerecorded calls and National Do Not Call Registry violations.

Is Alan Grochowski, Sr. a serial litigator?

No. Publicly available information indicates that Grochowski has filed only one major TCPA case and is not a high-volume professional plaintiff.

What is the lawsuit about?

The lawsuit alleges that QuoteWizard placed prerecorded calls and contacted numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry without valid consent.

What is the “Drips” platform issue?

The case focuses in part on whether conversational SMS systems still qualify as automated telemarketing activity under the TCPA when proper written consent is absent.

How is this connected to the Mantha litigation?

Both cases involve QuoteWizard and raise similar allegations regarding purchased leads, consent failures, and telemarketing compliance practices.

What damages are being sought?

The lawsuit seeks statutory TCPA damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per alleged violation, along with injunctive relief and class-wide remedies.

What is the status of the case?

As of 2026, Grochowski’s Florida-based claims remain active while non-Florida claims were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

Final Thoughts: A Consumer Plaintiff in the Post-Mantha Era

Alan Grochowski, Sr. is not a serial litigator or professional plaintiff. He appears to be a consumer alleging that QuoteWizard contacted him using prerecorded communications despite his number being listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.

The lawsuit represents another major challenge to the lead-generation industry and to businesses relying on third-party consent systems.

Following the earlier QuoteWizard litigation, the Grochowski case reinforces a growing legal trend:

Courts are increasingly skeptical of purchased-lead consent models, especially where prerecorded calls and DNCR violations are involved.

The case also highlights the broader transformation of TCPA litigation after Facebook v. Duguid. Plaintiffs are now focusing less on technical autodialer disputes and more on direct consent failures, prerecorded messages, and National Do Not Call Registry compliance.

For businesses relying on aggressive lead-generation systems, the warning is increasingly difficult to ignore.

Sources & References

Primary Sources – Alan Grochowski, Sr. (Litigation)

• https://tcpaworld.com/2025/01/03/new-year-new-quotewizard-tcpa-class-action-quotewizard-sued-for-alleged-violations-of-the-tcpas-dncr-prerecorded-call-provisions/ (TCPAWorld — “NEW YEAR, NEW QUOTEWIZARD TCPA CLASS ACTION”)
• Grochowski v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC, Case No. 9:24-cv-80379 (S.D. Fla.)

Secondary Sources – Legal Commentary

• https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/9:2024cv80379/664737 (Justia docket content inaccessible)
• https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68564858/grochowski-v-quotewizardcom-llc/ (CourtListener docket content inaccessible)

Related Cases

• Mantha v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-12235 (D. Mass.) $5M settlement + $19M for related claims

Disclaimer

This article is based on publicly available court filings, legal commentary, media reporting, and judicial rulings. Alan Grochowski, Sr. is not characterized here as a serial litigator or professional plaintiff. The article is intended solely for informational and educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.