Order | Filed: August 06, 2026
| Entered: August 06, 2026
Hossfeld v. EverQuote, Inc et al
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) | Massachusetts
Order on Motion to Dismiss Order on Motion to Compel Order on Motion to Strike
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 41 Motion to Dismiss; denying 43 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion to Dismiss; denying 47 Motion to Strike.
The court will deny defendant Farmers Group, Inc.'s (FGI) motion to dismiss. It argues that the Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently allege any claim for which it is liable because it did not directly make any calls or send any text messages to plaintiff Robert Hossfeld, and neither defendant EverQuote, Inc., nor the Farmers agency owned by non-party Alexander Holmes were acting as agents of FGI when they made calls or sent text messages. The problem is this: The court's review at this stage is limited to the four corners of the Amended Complaint, and the pleading does allege the existence of an agency relationship. While it remains to be seen whether Hossfeld can prove this assertion true after discovery, the allegation -- which the court must accept as true -- suffices to state a claim premised on agency liability.
Turning to the various motions of EverQuote, the court will rule as follows. First, the court will deny the motion to compel arbitration. A party that seeks to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., must show "(1) that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, (2) that the movant is entitled to invoke the arbitration clause, (3) that the other party is bound by that clause, and (4) that the claim asserted comes within the clause's scope." Ouadani v. TF Final Mile LLC, 876 F.3d 31, 36 (1st Cir. 2017), quoting InterGen N.V. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134, 142 (1st Cir. 2003). Here, the existence of a valid contract is in dispute. Although EverQuote offers evidence that a visitor to its website entered plaintiff Hossfeld's telephone number and email address to request a quote, Hossfeld unequivocally avers in the Amended Complaint that the visitor was not him. If a jury credits Hossfeld's testimony, it follows that he never entered into any agreement to arbitrate his dispute with EverQuote.
The court will also deny the motion to strike. EverQuote does not suggest that Hossfeld has failed to plausibly plead the existence of a definable class. It instead challenges the merits of that class, arguing, for example, that the class is overbroad or that the proposed members lack commonality. But resolution of these issues is more properly suited to the class certification stage.
Finally, the court allows in part and denies in part EverQuote's motion to dismiss. The court agrees that Hossfeld's unjust enrichment claim (Count IV) is inadequately pled. Even setting aside the issue of whether Hossfeld (as opposed to another party) provided EverQuote with the relevant benefit, the Amended Complaint does not plausibly establish either that the information in the lead is of the type for which Hossfeld would reasonably expect compensation or that EverQuote knew he would expect to be paid for it. The court also agrees that the TCPA claims must be dismissed to the extent that they are based on calls 6-8. EverQuote did not place these calls, and while the Amended Complaint plausibly alleges that EverQuote sold the lead to the entity that did place the calls and knowingly misrepresented the lead as consented-to during the process, knowledge and foreseeability, standing alone, do not create an agency relationship. The conduct -- however deplorable -- accordingly does not suffice to plausibly establish the calls were made "by or on behalf of" EverQuote within the scope of the TCPA.
The court declines, however, to otherwise dismiss Count II (and derivative Count III). Even assuming that EverQuote believed Hossfeld to have consented to its initial call, the question of whether it honored Hossfeld's subsequent request to be placed on the do not call list within a "reasonable" period of time or whether EverQuote's policies or procedures were deficient is an issue of fact not suited for resolution at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. (RGS, law3)