The FracTEL LLC lawsuit is a federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act case filed on February 9, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by Mark W. Dobronski, a Michigan resident with a long record of TCPA filings. The complaint, captioned Dobronski v. Fractel, LLC et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-10464, initially sought $725,000 in damages and named four defendants tied to alleged unwanted robocalls. FracTEL itself was voluntarily dismissed from the case on March 27, 2026, roughly seven weeks after filing. The litigation continues against the remaining defendants.1PACER Monitor. Dobronski v. Fractel, LLC et al., Complaint2Docket Alarm. Dobronski v. Fractel, LLC et al.
Who Was Sued
The complaint lists four defendants: Consumer Transparency Group, a “John Doe” defendant, FracTEL LLC, and Nuso LLC. The cause of action is brought under 47 U.S.C. § 227, the TCPA’s core provision restricting the use of automated telephone equipment. The case was assigned to District Judge Brandy R. McMillion, with Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford also assigned.1PACER Monitor. Dobronski v. Fractel, LLC et al., Complaint2Docket Alarm. Dobronski v. Fractel, LLC et al.
Consumer Transparency Group, also known as the American Consumer Transparency Group, describes itself as a consumer advocacy organization that connects people with debt relief providers. In practice it operates as a lead-generation service, matching consumers with what it calls “verified debt relief partners” for debt settlement and consolidation. The organization has drawn mixed reviews on third-party platforms, including consumer concerns about high-pressure sales calls and unsolicited contact.3Consumer Transparency Group. Consumer Transparency Group Homepage4Consumer Transparency Group. A Balanced Look at Consumer Transparency Group
Nuso LLC is a cloud communications provider that supplies wholesale voice, messaging, and collaboration services to carriers and service providers. The company has publicly stated that it maintains strict robocall mitigation practices, has fully implemented the STIR/SHAKEN caller-authentication framework, and uses know-your-customer policies to vet its clients.5NUSO. Working Together to Combat Robocalls
Why FracTEL Was Dropped From the Case
On March 27, 2026, Dobronski filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to FracTEL LLC, removing the company from the litigation. The reasons behind that dismissal are not spelled out in the public docket entries. The case caption still carries FracTEL’s name, which can be misleading: the company is no longer an active defendant.2Docket Alarm. Dobronski v. Fractel, LLC et al.
A voluntary dismissal at this early stage can reflect any number of things, including a private resolution, a decision that the evidence of direct involvement was thin, or a strategic narrowing of the case. Without access to settlement discussions or the specific factual record, the reason remains unclear.
Where the Case Stands
The docket has been active since FracTEL’s exit. On April 7, 2026, Judge McMillion signed a stipulation and order giving Nuso LLC until April 23, 2026, to file a responsive pleading. On April 23 the court issued an order requiring a response to a motion to dismiss, with a May 14, 2026 deadline.2Docket Alarm. Dobronski v. Fractel, LLC et al.6PACER Monitor. Dobronski v. Fractel, LLC et al., Order on Motion to Dismiss
Motion practice continued through the spring and into early summer. A ruling on a motion to dismiss was entered on May 12, followed by another motion to dismiss on May 22 and a separate one on June 2. A temporary restraining order appeared on the docket on June 1, and responses to motions were filed on June 4. The case remains open against the remaining defendants.2Docket Alarm. Dobronski v. Fractel, LLC et al.
Who the Plaintiff Is
Mark W. Dobronski is not a first-time filer. He has been identified in federal court proceedings as a “serial TCPA plaintiff” with a documented filing history going back to at least 2021. Court records from prior cases indicate that Dobronski admitted under oath to using aliases to generate TCPA claims, following a pattern that produced settlement payments across multiple cases over several years.7eComm Alliance. Federal Court Gives a TCPA Troll a Taste of His Own Medicine
That history has drawn a response. In a separate case, Specialty Medical Inc. v. Mark Dobronski et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-10664 in the same Eastern District of Michigan, a company sued Dobronski, his wife, and his company Safe Train LLC, alleging they operated as a RICO enterprise to fabricate TCPA claims. On February 26, 2026, Judge Mark A. Goldsmith found that Dobronski’s use of false identities across multiple cases constituted a sufficient “pattern of racketeering” to let the RICO lawsuit proceed. Dobronski has also filed other recent TCPA actions pro se, including a January 2026 suit against a political action committee.7eComm Alliance. Federal Court Gives a TCPA Troll a Taste of His Own Medicine8TCPA World. Dobronski Strikes Again: Famed Plaintiff Hits PAC With TCPA Suit
That background shapes how courts and defendants approach these claims. A TCPA suit brought by a plaintiff a federal judge has found to have used false identities to manufacture claims carries different weight from one filed by a consumer describing a first encounter with unwanted calls.
Why a Telecom Carrier Gets Named at All
The legal theory behind naming a telecom carrier alongside the entity that allegedly placed the calls sits in one of the more contested areas of TCPA law. The question is whether a carrier that transmits calls placed by someone else can itself be liable for those calls.
Under a 2015 FCC order, a platform or carrier may be treated as the “maker” of a call if it is “so involved in the placing of the calls as to be deemed to have initiated them.” Courts apply a “totality of the facts and circumstances” test. In Mey v. All Access Telecom, Inc., a federal court in West Virginia ruled that common carrier immunity is not absolute and that carriers can face liability when they have a “high degree of involvement or actual notice of an illegal use” and fail to take steps to stop the transmissions.9Davis Wright Tremaine. Mey v. All Access Telecom
Other courts have pushed the other way. Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), liability is generally limited to the actual sender, and that provision does not include the “on behalf of” language found elsewhere in the statute that allows vicarious liability. A federal court in the Northern District of West Virginia held that while service providers might still face liability through common-law theories such as agency or joint venture, those claims require a strong showing of control over the entity that actually placed the calls.10Klein Moynihan Turco. Service Providers May Not Be Liable for Marketer Violations of the TCPA
About FracTEL LLC
FracTEL LLC is a wholesale telecommunications carrier founded in 2007 and headquartered in Indialantic, Florida. The company describes itself as an FCC-licensed competitive local exchange carrier operating across 50 states, with on-net coverage in 47 states and more than 4.5 million phone numbers on its network. Its business centers on direct PSTN interconnection for partners on a wholesale basis, including inbound numbers, SIP termination, number porting, messaging, and toll-free traffic management.11FracTEL. FracTEL LLC Company Profile12FracTEL. FracTEL Carrier Services
The company holds a B rating from the Better Business Bureau, which lists 34 complaints filed against the business. Consumer reviews on the BBB profile cite persistent unwanted telemarketing calls, with recipients reporting calls from numbers sharing their own area code. Other complaints allege the company failed to honor requests to be removed from calling lists. As a wholesale carrier, FracTEL may not originate these calls itself, and the complaints reflect the difficulty consumers face in identifying the responsible party in a chain of telecom intermediaries.13BBB. FracTEL LLC BBB Business Profile