The Symple Lending lawsuit landscape centers on the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Tampa-based fintech has been sued at least three times in the Southern District of Florida over allegedly unsolicited marketing texts and calls to consumers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Two of those cases were voluntarily dismissed. A third, filed in October 2025, appears to remain active. A separate trademark case is pending in California.
The Active TCPA Class Action: Paniagua v. Symple Lending
The most detailed suit was filed by David Paniagua in October 2025. According to the complaint, Symple Lending sent at least six unsolicited text messages to his cell phone between August 19 and August 22, 2025, even though his number had been on the National Do Not Call Registry since September 7, 2011.1TCPA World. Paniagua v. Symple Lending LLC Complaint
The messages read: “Hi, we missed you earlier, please call us back at +12098507490. Symple Lending.” Paniagua says he had no existing business relationship with the company and had never inquired about its services. The complaint calls the outreach “cold texting” and alleges violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c).1TCPA World. Paniagua v. Symple Lending LLC Complaint
The proposed class covers all U.S. residents whose numbers were on the Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days, who received more than one call from Symple Lending within a 12-month period, and who had no prior business relationship or recent inquiry with the company. The suit seeks $500 per negligent violation, $1,500 per knowing or willful violation, injunctive relief, and class certification.1TCPA World. Paniagua v. Symple Lending LLC Complaint No dismissal or resolution has been reported.
The Two Earlier TCPA Cases That Went Away
Ryan Turizo filed the first suit on July 18, 2024, under case number 0:24-cv-61274, assigned to Judge David S. Leibowitz. It lasted about seven weeks. Turizo filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on September 4, 2024, and the judge dismissed the case with prejudice the same day, meaning Turizo cannot refile the same claims.2PACER Monitor. Turizo v. Symple Lending LLC
Steven Betts filed a similar class action on January 20, 2025 (case number 0:25-cv-60114, Judge Rodney Smith). He voluntarily dismissed the case on April 30, 2025, and Judge Smith closed it the next day. That dismissal was without prejudice, so Betts could in principle refile.3PACER Monitor. Betts v. Symple Lending LLC The court filings do not explain why either plaintiff walked away.
A Separate Trademark Case in California
Not every case with Symple Lending’s name on it is about consumer marketing. Eric J. Troutman et al v. Symple Lending LLC, filed on May 30, 2025, in the Central District of California (case number 8:25-cv-01181), is a trademark infringement suit. As of mid-June 2026, Judge James V. Selna had denied the plaintiffs’ second motion for a preliminary injunction, and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.4PACER Monitor. Troutman et al v. Symple Lending LLC That dispute does not involve consumer claims.
Why the TCPA Is the Statute in Play
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act restricts how businesses can contact consumers by phone and text. It prohibits sending marketing messages to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry unless the sender has an established business relationship with the recipient or the recipient has given prior express written consent. Statutory damages are $500 per unsolicited call or text, tripling to $1,500 for knowing or willful violations. Because damages accrue per message rather than per plaintiff, class-action exposure can grow fast when a company reaches thousands of numbers.
The Arbitration Clause That Could Reshape the Fight
Symple Lending’s website includes a mandatory arbitration agreement and class action waiver covering disputes tied to the website, loan applications, and services. It requires individual arbitration through the American Arbitration Association and bars class or representative proceedings in court or arbitration.5Symple Lending. Arbitration Agreement
Consumers can opt out by sending a signed written notice to the company’s Santa Ana, California address within 60 days of using the website or applying for services. The clause exempts servicemembers and their dependents under the Military Lending Act and allows either party to bring individual claims in small-claims court.5Symple Lending. Arbitration Agreement The agreement states that any challenge to the validity of the class action waiver must be decided by a court, not an arbitrator. Whether the clause reaches recipients of cold texts who never applied for a loan is an open question the Paniagua case may test.
The Consumer Complaints Behind the Suits
The TCPA litigation tracks a wider pattern of grievances. As of mid-2026, the Better Business Bureau listed 48 complaints against Symple Lending over the preceding three years, 18 of them closed in the most recent 12 months. The company responded to 42, and six were marked “resolved,” meaning the consumer confirmed the issue was addressed.6Better Business Bureau. Symple Lending LLC Complaints
Recurring themes include:
- Persistent calls, texts, and mailers about loan approvals consumers say they never applied for, with reports of being unable to stop the contact despite repeated requests.6Better Business Bureau. Symple Lending LLC Complaints
- Bait-and-switch allegations, with consumers saying they responded to ads for low-interest personal loans and were instead steered into debt settlement programs. One complainant described being offered an “alternative” debt settlement option after applying for a small personal loan and called it a bait and switch.7Better Business Bureau. Symple Lending LLC Complaints Page 3
- Aggressive sales tactics, including representatives who allegedly refused to take “no” for an answer and pressured consumers to sign agreements on the spot.8Better Business Bureau. Symple Lending LLC Complaints Page 2
In its BBB responses, Symple Lending has described its outreach as “lawful promotional campaigns” and “pre-approved marketing offers” sourced through third-party lead providers. The company says that when applicants do not meet underwriting guidelines for personal loans, its system “automatically presents alternative financial solutions,” and that these programs are “optional, disclosed in full, and require the client’s informed consent.”6Better Business Bureau. Symple Lending LLC Complaints Symple Lending has also said it adds complainants to an internal Do Not Contact list and has conducted internal reviews of employee conduct after professionalism complaints.7Better Business Bureau. Symple Lending LLC Complaints Page 3
If you received texts or calls from Symple Lending and your number is on the Do Not Call Registry, save the messages, note the dates and times, and check whether you ever gave the company or a lead provider written consent to contact you. Those are the facts the Paniagua complaint hinges on.