A Place for Mom Lawsuit: Robocall Settlement, Senate Probe, State Laws

A Place for Mom has been the subject of a $6 million class action lawsuit over unwanted robocalls, a 2024 U.S. Senate investigation into allegedly deceptive business practices, and a growing patchwork of state laws forcing senior living referral agencies to disclose the commissions they collect from the facilities they recommend. The company connects families with assisted living facilities free of charge, but earns its revenue from the facilities themselves, and that arrangement sits at the center of nearly every complaint against it.

The $6 Million Robocall Settlement

The largest consumer case against A Place for Mom was a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action filed in August 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.¹ The lawsuit alleged that when consumers filled out an information request on the company’s website, A Place for Mom used an automated dialing system to call their cell phones without proper written consent. A disclaimer existed, but the complaint said it appeared in extremely small font near the bottom of the page, with no checkbox or “I agree” button required.²

A Place for Mom agreed to settle for $6 million. The settlement class covered people across the United States who received non-emergency automated or prerecorded calls from the company between August 7, 2013, and August 15, 2019, a group court documents estimated at more than 56,000.³

Class members could expect at least $25 each, with the option to donate the payment to the Fisher Center for Alzheimer’s Research Foundation. The company denied wrongdoing, said the settlement was meant to avoid the cost and distraction of continued litigation, and stated it had “never engaged in cold calling or robocalls.” It also agreed to change its intake practices to secure prior express written consent before calling cell phones.³

The 2024 Senate Investigation

In May 2024, the Washington Post published an investigation that found, in 28 states, more than one-third of the facilities A Place for Mom designated as “most highly recommended” had been cited by regulators for neglect or substandard care within the previous two years. Many of those citations involved repeat offenses. The Post also reported that the company did not independently review the regulatory records of the facilities it recommended, despite marketing itself as a “trusted advisory service.”⁴

The next month, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, then chairman of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, opened a formal investigation. In a June 17, 2024 letter, Casey accused the company of “deceptive business practices” and pointed to four specific concerns.⁵

The first was the commission-driven referral list itself. A Place for Mom lists roughly 14,000 of the approximately 30,600 senior living facilities in the country, limited to those that agree to pay commissions, yet markets itself as “unbiased and no-cost.”⁶

The second was upselling. Casey cited the company’s own data showing that nearly 40% of families who moved into assisted living, and 55% of those referred to memory care, ended up paying above the top of their stated budget.⁶

The third was alleged discrimination against Medicaid recipients. Internal company guidance, Casey said, directed advisers to ensure “no federally funded family is referred” to partner communities, effectively excluding low-income seniors.⁵

The fourth was safety. The investigation adopted the Post’s finding that facilities carrying the company’s “Best of Senior Living” designation included many with documented neglect, medication mismanagement, and inadequate monitoring of residents who later died.⁵

Casey demanded three years of revenue data, lists of the 100 facilities generating the most revenue and receiving the most referrals, vetting documentation, adviser training materials, and sample contracts, with a July 15, 2024 response deadline.⁷

Concerns about the company’s vetting were not new. A 2010 Seattle Times investigation found that A Place for Mom did not routinely check whether facilities on its list had histories of state violations. The Times reported that the company had recommended a Tacoma facility that was later cited for fatal neglect involving an 88-year-old resident who died from untreated pressure sores, and that multiple families said the facilities they were referred to had not been visited by A Place for Mom staff in years, or ever. Co-founder Pamala Temple told the paper employees “may be behind on visiting the homes.”⁸

How the Business Actually Works

A Place for Mom is a referral platform. Families use it for free. The revenue comes from the assisted living facilities, which pay commissions when a referred family moves in.⁹ The Federal Trade Commission has identified the company as the largest third-party paid referral service for senior living facilities in the United States.¹⁰

How large are the commissions? The Wisconsin Assisted Living Association, testifying in support of a state disclosure bill, said referral commissions typically run between 85% and 100% of a resident’s first month of rent and care, and can reach $12,000 for dementia placements.¹¹ Legislators and critics have argued those costs are passed along to families through higher facility fees.⁶

State Laws Now Regulating Referral Agencies

Several states have responded with disclosure laws that apply to A Place for Mom and its competitors.

Washington

Washington’s Elder and Vulnerable Adult Referral Agency Act, enacted in 2011, requires referral agencies to keep records, provide disclosure statements to clients, verify the regulatory status of recommended providers, and submit to background checks. Agencies are also subject to the state’s Consumer Protection Act.¹²

Arizona

Under A.R.S. § 36-446.14, referral agencies must disclose all business and financial relationships with facilities, including the specific dollar amount or percentage of the referral fee, in at least 14-point font. Consumers must acknowledge the disclosure in writing, and each violation carries a civil penalty of up to $1,000.¹³

Colorado

Colorado’s HB19-1268, enacted in 2019, requires anyone who refers a prospective resident to an assisted living facility for a fee to disclose the business relationship and the fact that the facility is paying for the referral. Violations are enforced by the attorney general or district attorneys.¹⁴

Maryland

Maryland’s Senate Bill 952, effective October 1, 2024, with some provisions phasing in through October 2025, goes further than most. Assisted living referrers must register with the state Office of Health Care Quality, disclose all financial relationships with facilities, carry general liability insurance, and run background checks on employees. The law also bars referrers from selling clients’ personal data without informed consent, restricts them from recommending only facilities that pay them, and caps the window for collecting a referral fee at two years after the referral.¹⁵¹⁶

Wisconsin and Missouri

Wisconsin Senate Bill 262, introduced in 2025 by Senator Rachael Cabral-Guevara and Representative Rick Gundrum, would require agencies to disclose contract relationships and fees, let consumers stop the use of their personal information, cap agencies at one fee per placement, and forbid tying referral fees to how much a resident pays. The Senate Committee on Health held a public hearing on June 4, 2025.¹¹

In Missouri, Representative Phil Amato’s HB 390 and an amendment attached to HB 943 would require senior care referral agencies to disclose financial relationships with facilities and get consumer consent before sharing contact information with third parties. As of April 2025, a Senate committee had held a hearing but taken no vote.¹⁷

What the Company Says

A Place for Mom did not publicly respond to the Senate investigation when Casey announced it. In earlier statements to McKnight’s Senior Living, the company said it is “continually improving its processes based on feedback from residents and families” and is committed to “providing access to transparent information, tools and resources” so families can make informed decisions. In response to the Washington Post investigation, the company said it “encourages families to do their own research to make ‘an informed decision.'”⁷⁵

On the Wisconsin bill, chief legal officer Michelle McGovern called the proposal a “troubling precedent” driven by industry stakeholders seeking to “renegotiate the terms of their private contracts.”¹¹

What This Means If You Are Using the Service

If you or a family member is working with A Place for Mom, treat its recommendations as leads rather than vetted endorsements. The company’s own listings are limited to facilities that pay it, and both federal and state officials have said the vetting behind its top designations does not consistently screen out facilities with recent regulatory citations. Check the licensing and inspection records maintained by your state’s health or long-term care regulator for any facility on your shortlist, and ask the facility directly what it pays in referral commissions and whether those costs are reflected in your rate. In states with disclosure laws, you are entitled to that information in writing.

1
Justia. Kim v. A Place for Mom, Inc., C17-1826 TSZ
2
ClassAction.org. Kim v. A Place for Mom, Inc., Complaint
3
McKnight’s Senior Living. A Place for Mom Agrees To Settle Lawsuit for $6 Million
4
Washington Post. A Place for Mom Assisted Living Referral
5
NBC News. Senate Announces Probe Into A Place for Mom Referral Service
6
Senior Housing News. U.S. Senator Probes A Place for Mom, Alleging Deceptive Practices
7
McKnight’s Senior Living. Sen. Casey Calls Out A Place for Mom Over Potentially Deceptive Business Practices
8
Seattle Times. Senior Care Placement Companies Scramble To Cash In
9
Senior Housing News. A Place for Mom Pivots to AI Amid Big Shifts in Senior Living Digital Marketing Trends
10
Federal Trade Commission. Parties Agree to Divestiture of Senior Living Facilities Referral Service Caring.com
11
Cap Times. A Place for Mom Assisted Living Referrals Draw Wisconsin Scrutiny
12
Washington State Legislature. Chapter 18.330 RCW – Elder and Vulnerable Adult Referral Agency Act
13
Arizona Legislature. A.R.S. § 36-446.14
14
Colorado General Assembly. HB19-1268
15
Maryland Department of Health. Assisted Living Referrer
16
New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Health-General § 19-1813, Assisted Living Referrers
17
Missouri Independent. Missouri Bill Would Require Senior Care Referral Companies To Disclose Financial Ties