The Reagan Gold Group lawsuit is a proposed class action filed in December 2024 by Washington resident Mark Hoffman, who alleges the Los Angeles precious metals dealer sent him 35 unwanted marketing calls and texts promoting Gold IRAs in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and two Washington state consumer protection laws. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington before Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright, and it is now in discovery, with Hoffman’s motion for class certification due July 27, 2026.1PACER Monitor. Hoffman v. Reagan Gold Group LLC
What Hoffman Alleges
According to the complaint filed December 5, 2024, Hoffman received 35 calls and text messages from Reagan Gold Group between June 20, 2023, and November 20, 2024, on a phone number he uses for personal and household purposes. The messages promoted the company’s services for setting up a Gold IRA, a self-directed retirement account backed by physical precious metals. Hoffman says his number had been listed on the national do-not-call registry for more than five years before the calls began, that he was never a customer of Reagan Gold Group, and that he did not consent to the communications.2Midpage. Hoffman v. Reagan Gold Group LLC, 3:24-cv-06003-TMC
The complaint brings three statutory claims:
- The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which restricts telemarketing calls and texts to numbers on the national do-not-call registry.
- The Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act, which prohibits unsolicited commercial texts to Washington residents’ cell phones.
- The Washington Consumer Protection Act, which can add remedies including treble damages for CEMA violations.2Midpage. Hoffman v. Reagan Gold Group LLC, 3:24-cv-06003-TMC
Hoffman seeks to represent two proposed classes: a National Do Not Call Class and a Washington CEMA Class. The specific parameters of each class definition were not detailed in the available filings.2Midpage. Hoffman v. Reagan Gold Group LLC, 3:24-cv-06003-TMC
How Reagan Gold Group Is Defending the Case
Reagan Gold Group disputes the core allegations. The company says Hoffman was not a stranger who received cold-call marketing but had initiated contact by requesting a “gold guide” about investment options, which it argues established a business relationship.2Midpage. Hoffman v. Reagan Gold Group LLC, 3:24-cv-06003-TMC
The company also characterizes the messages not as telemarketing solicitations but as “courtesy messages” containing “informative, yet publicly available, communications.” On that view, it was sharing information rather than selling a product.2Midpage. Hoffman v. Reagan Gold Group LLC, 3:24-cv-06003-TMC
Reagan Gold Group further asserts that it followed standard telemarketing compliance practices. It says it did not contact people between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., consulted the national do-not-call registry regularly, kept a written internal do-not-call policy, and contacted only individuals who had previously opted in to receive communications.2Midpage. Hoffman v. Reagan Gold Group LLC, 3:24-cv-06003-TMC
Where the Case Stands
Reagan Gold Group filed its formal answer to the complaint on July 3, 2025, and the case moved into discovery. On July 8, 2025, the court set deadlines for initial disclosures, a joint status report, and the parties’ Rule 26(f) planning conference. On October 19, 2025, the court entered a class certification briefing schedule, with Hoffman’s motion for class certification due July 27, 2026.1PACER Monitor. Hoffman v. Reagan Gold Group LLC
Class certification is the next major milestone. If the court certifies the class, the case would expand beyond Hoffman’s individual claims to cover other people who received Reagan Gold Group’s texts while their numbers were on the do-not-call registry. If certification is denied, the case continues on Hoffman’s behalf alone.
An earlier procedural detour has already been resolved. The court entered a default against Reagan Gold Group on January 31, 2025, after the company failed to respond on time, then vacated the default on June 20, 2025, after finding the delay was tied to the company’s search for counsel and settlement discussions rather than an attempt to dodge the case.3Leagle. Hoffman v. Reagan Gold Group LLC
How This Fits a Broader Pattern of Gold IRA TCPA Suits
The Hoffman case is not isolated. Other precious metals dealers that market Gold IRAs have faced similar TCPA class actions, and several have paid to settle.
In Summerton v. Goldco Direct LLC, a federal court in Wisconsin preliminarily approved a $2 million settlement in December 2025 to resolve allegations that Goldco Direct sent excessive marketing texts to consumers on the do-not-call registry, including people who had previously asked to unsubscribe.4ClassAction.org. $2M Goldco Direct Settlement Resolves Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Marketing Texts Violated TCPA In Pitts v. Bishop Gold Group LLC, another precious metals firm reached a $2 million settlement over claims that it kept sending marketing texts after consumers replied “stop.”5ClaimDepot. Bishop TCPA Settlement
Whether Hoffman’s case follows a similar path to settlement or heads into a contested class certification fight will become clearer as the July 2026 briefing deadline approaches.