The Liberty Mutual and All Web Leads lawsuit was an indemnity fight filed in September 2025 in which Liberty Mutual Insurance Company sought $1,359,260.13 from Austin-based lead generator All Web Leads, Inc., alleging the company sold it insurance marketing leads that lacked proper consumer consent and then refused to cover Liberty Mutual’s defense costs when those leads produced Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions. The indemnity case settled with prejudice in May 2026 on undisclosed terms. The larger problem stemming from the same leads did not go away: in June 2026, a federal court certified a TCPA class action against Liberty Mutual with potential exposure of up to $30 million.
What Liberty Mutual Sued All Web Leads For
Liberty Mutual filed its complaint on September 12, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case number 1:25-cv-12565-ADB. The claims were breach of contract and violations of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, which covers unfair and deceptive trade practices.
The $1,359,260.13 in damages broke down into two pieces. The larger share, $1,285,799.87, was litigation costs and attorneys’ fees Liberty Mutual spent defending Fralish v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. in the Northern District of Indiana. The remaining $73,460.26 covered defense costs in a second TCPA class action filed in Massachusetts. Liberty Mutual said it had made formal indemnification demands to All Web Leads beginning in September 2021, with additional demands in June 2022 and August 2024, and that each was refused.
The complaint accused All Web Leads of failing to “properly vet, isolate, or scrub” the leads before selling them. In the Fralish matter, Liberty Mutual said Jornaya records showed that the name associated with the phone number All Web Leads had provided did not match the actual consumer. Liberty Mutual also sought multiplied damages under Chapter 93A, alleging All Web Leads’ conduct was willful and knowing.
By May 2026, the case settled with prejudice. The terms were not publicly disclosed.
Why the Leads Were Defective
All Web Leads, founded in 2005, runs consumer-facing insurance-quote websites and sells the resulting leads to insurance agents, brokers, and carriers. The leads at issue in the Liberty Mutual dispute did not originate on All Web Leads’ own sites. They came from a sub-aggregator called Next Level Media, LLC, which operated instant-auto-insurance-now.com. Liberty Mutual bought the leads from All Web Leads and used them to make prerecorded telemarketing calls.
To document consent, Liberty Mutual relied on Jornaya, a third-party platform that captures video playback of the consent process on lead-generation websites. The problem was upstream. The Next Level Media website allegedly did not list Liberty Mutual by name among the companies authorized to contact consumers. Without that identification, plaintiffs’ lawyers argued the consent captured on the site could not authorize Liberty Mutual’s calls.
The $30 Million Class Action Growing Out of the Same Leads
On June 12, 2026, Judge Brian E. Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted class certification in Ward v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 24-10526-BEM. The ruling put Liberty Mutual on the hook for approximately $30 million in potential statutory damages.
Named plaintiff Adam Ward alleged he never visited the Next Level Media website and never consented to telemarketing calls from Liberty Mutual. His lawyers argued the site’s consent form was fundamentally flawed because it did not identify Liberty Mutual, and that if the form was invalid, every call Liberty Mutual made from those leads violated the TCPA.
Judge Murphy found the validity of the consent form could be resolved on a class-wide basis and that common issues predominated. The court certified two classes:
- A “PVR Class” covering people who received prerecorded voice calls, estimated at more than 20,000 members.
- An “NDNC Class” for people whose numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry, estimated at more than 7,000 members.
The underlying data showed that between March and June 2020, Next Level Media sold 24,587 leads to All Web Leads, and Liberty Mutual used those leads for its calling campaigns. The court rejected Liberty Mutual’s argument that individualized consent inquiries would be necessary, noting the insurer had presented no evidence that the website’s consent language varied during the relevant period. On standing, the court held that receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls is a concrete injury. Judge Murphy also observed that because TCPA statutory damages are $500 per violation, or $1,500 if willful, a class action was the superior method for resolving the claims.
The Other TCPA Cases Tied to the Same Lead Pipeline
The Ward case was not the first TCPA suit against Liberty Mutual over these leads. Fralish v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 3:22-cv-00336 in the Northern District of Indiana, ran through discovery and motion practice before being terminated on November 19, 2024. The resolution terms were not publicly disclosed. Liberty Mutual’s defense costs in Fralish, close to $1.3 million, made up the bulk of what it later sought from All Web Leads.
A separate action arrived shortly after Liberty Mutual filed its indemnity suit. On November 5, 2025, Yevonne Powers filed a TCPA class action against Liberty Mutual in the District of Massachusetts. The Powers complaint alleged Liberty Mutual made unauthorized prerecorded calls using leads All Web Leads had sold it on or about November 4, 2021, and that those leads originated from a different website, ratemarketplace.com, operated by Plateau Data Services. Powers alleged Liberty Mutual’s name was buried among thousands of “industry partners” accessible only through hyperlinks. The complaint proposed two classes: one for people called without proper TCPA consent, and another for people on the Do Not Call Registry who received repeated marketing calls.
How the FCC’s Abandoned Consent Rule Fits In
The dispute unfolded while federal rules for lead-generation consent were in flux. In December 2023, the FCC adopted rules meant to close what it called the “lead generator loophole.” The rules would have required sellers to obtain express written consent on a one-to-one basis, meaning separate consent for each company that wanted to call, and would have required marketing calls to be “logically and topically associated” with whatever the consumer originally inquired about.
The insurance marketing industry challenged the rules. In Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025), the Eleventh Circuit vacated them, holding that the TCPA requires only that consent be “clearly and unmistakably” stated and that nothing in the statute mandates one-to-one consent or topical relevance. The FCC did not challenge the decision, and as of September 2025, the one-to-one consent rule was formally abandoned.
That ruling preserved the industry model of a single consent covering multiple potential callers, but it did not retroactively cure consent forms that failed to name specific companies at all. That gap is the precise issue driving the Ward certification: with the indemnity suit resolved, Liberty Mutual still faces a certified class of more than 20,000 people and statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 per call over leads that cost a fraction of that to acquire.