Advantage First Lawsuit: Chmielewski V. Advantage First Financial, LLC | Get out of debt, man – Steve Rhode

Primary source: View original complaint (PDF)

Facts as alleged in the complaint

The following is excerpted verbatim from the complaint filed in federal court. These are accusations; no factual determination has been made.

The parties

9. Plaintiff is an individual entitled to bring this action under the TCPA and a citizen and resident of Passaic County, New Jersey.
10. Defendant is a Wyoming limited liability company headquartered in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
11. Unless otherwise indicated, use of Defendant’s name in this Complaint includes all of Defendant’s agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, guarantors, subrogees, representatives, vendors, and insurers.

Factual allegations

12. In or around April 2025, Plaintiff requested to unsubscribe from Defendant’s calls by verbally requesting Defendant to place Complainant on Defendant’s Do Not Call list.
13. Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s request and continued to call Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, on or about: October 17, 2025; and b. October 17, 2025.
14. In total, Defendant called Plaintiff more than one (1) time after Plaintiff’s initial stop
15. On information and belief, the purpose of Defendant’s telephone calls was to request the sale of the solicitation. consumer goods, services and/or property.
16. On information and belief, the purpose of Defendant’s solicitations was to advertise, promote and/or market Defendant’s goods, services and/or property.
17. As evidenced by Defendant’s inability to honor Plaintiff’s opt-out request, Defendant does not honor consumer requests to opt out of call requests. Plaintiff did indeed attempt to opt out of Defendant’s calling requests by telling Defendant to stop contacting them, but Defendant continued to call Plaintiff.
18. Defendant’s refusal to honor Plaintiff’s opt-out requests demonstrates that Defendant has not established procedures to maintain a list of individuals who request not to receive calls from Defendant. The precise details regarding the lack of required policies and procedures are solely within the knowledge and control of Defendant.
19. Defendant’s refusal to honor Plaintiff’s opt-out requests demonstrates that Defendant does not provide training to its staff engaged in telemarketing. The precise details regarding the lack of training are solely within the knowledge and control of Defendant.
20. Defendant’s refusal to honor Plaintiff’s opt-out requests demonstrates that Defendant does not maintain a standalone “do not call” list. The precise details regarding the lack of training are solely within the knowledge and control of Defendant.
21. Defendant failed to follow required procedures for handling and processing opt-out requests prior to initiating the infringing calls it sent to Plaintiff, as evidenced by the fact that Plaintiff submitted an opt-out request and that request was never processed; the request was ignored by the defendant and her employees and the defendant continued to call.
22. Defendant sent at least two requests after Plaintiff’s initial opt-out request.
23. The claimant is the regular user of the telephone number on which the above call requests were received.
24. Plaintiff uses the cell phone that received Defendant’s calls for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff’s private phone line.
25. Upon information and belief, Defendant has access to outbound transmission reports for all calls advertising/promoting its services and goods. These reports show the dates, times, target phone numbers, and contents of each phone call sent to the claimant and class members. Defendant also has access to call logs that display incoming opt-out requests from Plaintiff and the class members.
26. Defendant’s calls caused harm to Plaintiff and the class members, including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance and violation of their statutory privacy rights.

Remedies sought

• An order certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Class as defined above,
• An award of statutory damages against the plaintiff and each member of the Class, as applicable under the TCPA;
• An order declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set forth above, violate the TCPA;
• An order requiring defendant to comply with 47 CFR § 64.1200(d) by (1) maintaining the required written policy; (2) offering training to their staff engaged in telemarketing; and (3) maintaining a do-not-call list; And
• Any further and other relief as the Court deems necessary.

Frequently asked questions

What is this lawsuit about?

Plaintiff filed this class action in federal court against Defendant. See the facts section above for the full allegations. (TODO: Complete all 4-5 FAQs about the case and applicable law.)

Source: HofListen. The information on this page is taken verbatim from the court complaint. These are just accusations; no factual determination has been made.