Law360 (July 13, 2026, 3:49 PM EDT) -- A Michigan-based mass tort law firm and a pair of affiliate firms are violating federal and Texas state laws through an artificial intelligence-generated telemarketing campaign meant to solicit clients, according to a putative class action filed in Texas federal court.

In her complaint filed Friday, plaintiff Emily Sutton accused DV Injury Law PLLC, HAH LLP and Heilbrun Law LLP of deploying "an automated, artificial-voice calling platform to solicit prospective clients en masse, placing materially identical artificial-voice calls to thousands of cellular telephone numbers without the prior express consent of the persons called."

Sutton said she received an unsolicited, AI-generated call in February from a number with a Texas area code that did not identify the call as coming from any of the defendant law firms. An "AI voice" began asking her a series of questions regarding potential injuries and continued presenting her with questions after she responded that the "subject matter did not pertain to her," the complaint alleges.

When Sutton asked who was calling, the AI voice allegedly identified itself as DV Injury Law and provided the firm's Michigan address. Sutton said in her complaint she had no prior relationship with the defendant firms and had never requested legal services, information or a callback from them and had not given them her contact information.

Sutton alleged the firms were not registered with the Texas secretary of state as required of telephone solicitors under the state's Business and Commerce Code.

"The AI voice continued to solicit plaintiff after she expressly and repeatedly declined, and the caller identification transmitted with the call concealed defendants' identity — both reflecting a deliberate solicitation campaign rather than an inadvertent contact," Sutton said.

Sutton accused the defendant firms of violating the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and several Texas laws including the mini-TCPA, the Texas telephone-solicitor registration statute and the state's anti-barratry statute.

Sutton is seeking damages for herself and several subclasses of potential plaintiffs, including a national subclass of anyone who received one of the AI calls without their consent and a subclass of people who had a Texas telephone number when they received an unsolicited AI call.

The complaint further seeks certification of a Texas barratry subclass of individuals who were in Texas or who had a Texas number when they received an unsolicited AI call that did not result in a contract for legal services. All of the subclasses seek to include people who received a call within four years of the lawsuit's filing.

The defendant law firms' "advertise for prospective clients across numerous mass-tort categories, including Suboxone, PFAS, Ozempic, CPAP, AFFF, Zantac, Port-a-Cath, hair relaxer, talcum powder, Roundup, Camp Lejeune, hernia mesh, Depo Provera, and OxBryta litigation," according to the complaint.

The thousands of AI-generated calls were placed "from lead lists and dialing records without verifying that the persons called had given prior express consent and without verifying that the telephone numbers called remained assigned to any person who had requested contact, causing defendants to place artificial-voice solicitation calls to numerous persons — including persons, like plaintiff, who never consented and whose numbers had been reassigned from a prior subscriber," Sutton said.

Sutton said every other person who received a call like the one she answered in February has been harmed through "invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, nuisance, wasted time, and the occupation of her cellular telephone and its resources."

In addition to the damages allowed under federal and Texas laws, Sutton is also asking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant law firms from further violations of the federal TCPA.

Counsel for Sutton and representatives of the law firms could not be reached Monday for comment.

Emily Sutton is represented by Mark L. Javitch of Javitch Law Office.

Counsel information for the defendant law firms was not available Monday.

The case is Emily Sutton v. DV Injury Law PLLC et al., case number 3:26-cv-01884, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

--Editing by Lakshna Mehta. 

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.