consentcheck.Check my store

THE CONSEQUENCES ARE ALREADY ON RECORD

Real brands.
Real consequences.

Explore texting, telemarketing and privacy disputes. Each record links to a regulator or court-authorized administrator and explains what the amount actually represents.

PRIMARY-SOURCE CASE LIBRARY53

Documented cases. Search the evidence and check the outcome.

Sources reviewed October 30, 2026. Outcomes and amounts are labeled for each case. These are public enforcement and litigation records, not ConsentCheck client results.

How to read these amounts

Administrative fines, monetary relief, regulatory settlements and proposed class settlements are different outcomes. A proposed settlement is not a final award. A payment requirement does not establish that the full amount has been collected.

Settlements can resolve disputed allegations without an admission of wrongdoing. These cases involve different businesses and facts; they do not predict liability for your store. Cases involving calls, health data, children’s data or location tracking have different scopes from a storefront audit. Our audit does not guarantee protection. A suspended judgment is not an amount collected. Records involving the same company may concern separate proceedings; amounts must not be added together as a total. Dates identify the cited announcement or order; this library is not a complete court docket.

8 of 53 cases shown

Teleflora

2026

$6M
Proposed class settlementProposed settlement fund

Marketing texts to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry were alleged in a TCPA suit.

Read the story & evidence

Miami-Dade County Circuit Court · Texts / TCPA

What happened

Carter v. Teleflora LLC, case 2026-012979-CA-01, alleges that marketing texts were sent to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Teleflora denies violating the law.

The financial consequence

The official administrator’s FAQ states a $6 million settlement sum, including costs, fees and approved claims. Final approval is pending; the listed hearing is November 25, 2026. This is not an imposed fine or a confirmed payout.

What to check in your setup

Consent and suppression checks need evidence. This dispute concerns Do Not Call allegations, not a court finding that a STOP webhook failed.

Primary records

Court-authorized settlement website & statusOfficial FAQ: settlement sum and benefits

Designer Brands / DSW

July 31, 2025

$4.429M
Final class settlement; administrator reports payments issuedUp to · court-approved settlement fund

Class representatives alleged that the companies continued sending marketing texts after recipients opted out. The defendants agreed to settle without admitting liability.

Read the story & evidence

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio; Kroll Settlement Administration · Texts / TCPA

What happened

The settlement provided for a fund of up to $4,429,180. The class covered messages sent from September 1, 2018, through September 1, 2024.

The financial consequence

The official settlement site reports final approval on July 31, 2025, and issuance of checks on November 14, 2025.

What to check in your setup

Opt-out requests should trigger a verifiable suppression process covering all relevant marketing texts.

Primary records

Official settlement administrator documentsOfficial FAQ: case facts and payment status

Coast Dental

2026

$3.84M
Proposed class settlementUp to · proposed settlement fund

Texts and calls after people replied STOP are at the center of the allegations.

Read the story & evidence

Miami-Dade County Circuit Court · Texts / TCPA

What happened

Chaviano v. Coast Dental Services alleges TCPA and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act violations. The proposed class includes people who received appointment-related calls or texts after asking the company to stop. The defendant denies wrongdoing.

The financial consequence

The official notice describes up to $3,840,664 available for claims, expenses and other settlement payments. Final approval is pending; the listed hearing is December 9, 2026. The cap includes cash and voucher benefits and is not a confirmed cash payment.

What to check in your setup

The existence of an opt-out instruction does not establish that later messaging follows it. Actual post-opt-out behavior is the relevant check.

Primary records

Official FAQ: allegations, fund and approval statusOfficial case documents

Sephora

August 24, 2022

$1.2M
Regulatory settlementCivil penalties in settlement

The beauty retailer faced allegations over undisclosed data sales and unprocessed GPC opt-outs.

Read the story & evidence

California Attorney General · Privacy / tracking

What happened

The AG alleged that Sephora failed to disclose sales of personal information, process GPC opt-out requests and cure the alleged violations within the then-applicable notice period.

The financial consequence

The settlement requires $1.2 million in penalties, clearer disclosures, opt-out mechanisms including GPC, changes to service-provider agreements and reports to the AG.

What to check in your setup

A retail privacy policy needs to line up with data-sharing practices and actual opt-out behavior.

Primary records

California AG announcementFiled judgment (PDF)

DoorDash

February 21, 2024

$375K
Stipulated judgment; settlement announcedCivil penalty in settlement

California alleged DoorDash sold customers’ personal information through marketing cooperatives without notice or an opt-out opportunity, violating the CCPA and CalOPPA.

Read the story & evidence

California Attorney General · Privacy / tracking

What happened

Businesses in the cooperative exchanged customer data to market to one another’s audiences. The state said DoorDash customer information was disclosed beyond the cooperative, including to a data broker that resold it. The case highlights that an indirect exchange can still constitute a regulated sale of personal information.

The financial consequence

DoorDash agreed to a $375,000 civil penalty and injunctive terms, including reviewing marketing and analytics vendor contracts and monitoring potential sales or sharing. The state described the resolution as an agreement to resolve allegations, not a criminal finding.

What to check in your setup

Map data flows through joint marketing and analytics arrangements, document each disclosure, and assess whether consumers need notice and a practical opt-out.

Primary records

California AG settlement announcementCalifornia AG privacy enforcement actions

Todd Snyder

May 6, 2025

$345,178
Administrative orderAdministrative fine ordered

A privacy portal failed to process opt-outs for 40 days, according to the CPPA.

Read the story & evidence

California Privacy Protection Agency · Privacy / tracking

What happened

The CPPA alleged that the clothing retailer failed to configure and oversee its privacy portal, required excessive information, and required identity verification before sale / sharing opt-outs.

The financial consequence

The Board’s decision requires a $345,178 fine, changes to opt-out mechanisms and employee training.

What to check in your setup

A third-party privacy tool still needs configuration and testing. The presence of a portal does not show that requests are processed.

Primary records

CPPA decision announcementBoard order (PDF)

American Honda Motor Co.

March 12, 2025

$632.5K
CPPA Board decision and stipulated final orderAdministrative fine ordered

The CPPA alleged Honda made it difficult for Californians to exercise privacy rights by demanding excess information or identity verification, presenting choices unevenly, obstructing authorized agents, and lacking required privacy terms in ad-tech contracts.

Read the story & evidence

California Privacy Protection Agency · Privacy / tracking

What happened

The agency’s connected-vehicle review examined actual privacy request flows and vendor arrangements. Its order quantified certain affected consumers: some were required to provide unnecessary details, some requests were denied pending identity verification, and some authorized-agent requests required extra confirmation.

The financial consequence

Honda must simplify privacy requests, train employees, certify compliance, have a UX designer assess request methods, and improve contracts. The Board imposed a $632,500 administrative fine. The order resolves the agency’s claims; it does not represent a criminal conviction.

What to check in your setup

Test opt-out and limitation flows as consumers experience them, permit authorized agents, and ensure ad-tech agreements contain enforceable privacy protections.

Primary records

CPPA announcementCPPA final order

Farha Roofing / Summa Media

July 29, 2025

$250K
Final approval granted by the courtCourt-approved settlement fund

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants sent marketing texts without written consent and failed to provide required sender information. The defendants denied the allegations.

Read the story & evidence

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri; CPT Group settlement administrator · Texts / TCPA

What happened

The federal court approved a $250,000 fund. The notice covered more than one marketing text within a 12-month period from September 13, 2019, through October 16, 2024.

The financial consequence

The administrator publishes the court’s final approval order dated July 29, 2025. Payment to class members is subject to deductions and a valid claim.

What to check in your setup

Marketing-text consent should be provable, and messages should clearly identify the sender.

Primary records

Official settlement administrator siteFederal court final approval orderOfficial case documents

Check the setup behind your next send.

Technical checks. Recorded evidence. Specific fix recommendations.

Choose your check