The number of filed civil robocall fraud lawsuits against Family First Life’s parent company has climbed to nine.

Family First Life is an MLM company that makes money selling purported insurance leads to its promoters.

The opaqueness of the scheme has lead to multiple lawsuits alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Plaintiff James Calhoun initially filed a petition in Texas state court against Nani Brand Inc. and SelectQuote Insurance Services in July 2024.

In December 2024, an amended petition added Integrity (parent company of Family First Life) and Connie Health Inc. as defendants. Calhoun dropped Nani Brand Inc. as a defendant in January 2025.

Later that same month on January 10th, the parties consented to have Calhoun’s petition filed as a civil action at the federal level in Texas (Western District, Austin Division).

SelectQuote Insurance Services settled Calhoun’s claims on January 24th, 2025. Calhoun’s case, as it pertains to SelectQuote Insurance Services, was stayed on January 27th.

Calhoun filed a Second Amended Petition, pertaining to Connie Health Inc. and Integrity Marketing Group LLC, on February 28th, 2025.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) protects consumers from the nuisance and privacy invasion inherent in unwanted telemarketing, through broad prohibitions against nonconsensual robocalling, telemarketing to phone numbers
subject to a do-not-call request, or telephone solicitations to phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, among other things.

Integrity controls the telemarketing conducted on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries through uniform policies and practices, as well as through back-end support that provides its agents with a centralized platform for maintaining lead or consumer relationship management data, obtaining marketing assistance, and facilitating consumer purchases.

Integrity’s TCPA policies and practices are ineffective, and Integrity fails to properly enforce them, which has caused Plaintiff and other consumers to incur TCPA violations on a massive scale.

Oftentimes, as in Plaintiff’s case, the consumer receives TCPA violations through multiple Integrity downlines, with no real ability to stop the calls due to the anonymous nature of the calling and Integrity’s refusal to properly coordinate TCPA compliance.

Specifically, the TCPA prohibits companies like Integrity and its subsidiaries from accepting business through telemarketing without first instituting procedures to prevent calls to consumers who ask not to be called. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) (the internal do-not-call or “IDNC” rule).

Integrity violates the TCPA’s IDNC rule by:

(1) failing to ensure that it and its telemarketers have a valid written internal do-not-call policy as required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(1);

(2) failing to ensure proper telemarketing training as required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(2);

(3) failing to properly coordinate and honor do-not-call requests amongst its various agents and telemarketers as
required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3); and

(4) permitting its telemarketers to use fake names and spoofed numbers that hide who is calling and Integrity’s identity, despite 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4)’s requirement that the caller and seller be identified.

Calhoun alleges he received “thousands of spoofed-number telemarketing calls” that began in July 2023.

Although these calls in virtually every instant began with the caller using a generic, fake name, they trace to agents affiliated with Integrity partners, including SeniorCare Benefits, Eldercare Insurance Services, Senior Med Benefits, American Senior Benefits, Family First Life, LLC, and Connexion Point, LLC.

All of these calls violated the TCPA’s separate prohibition against initiating telephone solicitations to telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry (“NDNCR”), too, since Plaintiff’s phone number has been on the NDNCR since 2022.

The TCPA also prohibits making any telemarketing call using an artificial or prerecorded voice to a cell phone number or residential landline without “prior express written consent.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d).

Based on the tracing of incoming calls to its partners, Integrity caused Plaintiff to receive a large number of these calls through these partners.

Integrity should be held liable for these calls, even if it did not “initiate” them. Despite knowing for years that its practices result in illegal calls, and that its internal do-not-call list is incomplete, it continues to accept business derived therefrom.

Across one count, Calhoun is seeking statutory damages of $500 to $1500 per call received in alleged violation of the TCPA.

Both Integrity Marketing Group and Connie Health moved to dismiss Calhoun’s lawsuit (petition).

On December 5th, 2025, Connie Health’s Motion to Dismiss was denied. Integrity Marketing Group’s motion was partially granted.

At the outset, the Court finds that the allegations made in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint are not sufficient to plausibly allege Integrity’s direct liability, given that Plaintiff concedes it does not allege that Integrity “initiated” the phone calls.

The question remains, however, whether Plaintiff sufficiently alleged Integrity’s responsibility for the calls under a theory of vicarious liability.

Further exploring vicarious liability, the court ruled Calhoun’s

generalized allegations … are insufficient to allow the Court to infer the callers were acting as Integrity’s agents.

Unfortunately for Calhoun, the court rules his case was dismissed against Integrity Marketing Group without prejudice.

Integrity Marketing Group had filed for dismissal with prejudice (meaning Calhoun would not be able to refile), hence partial granting of the motion.

Calhoun’s case against Connie Health is proceeding, with the latter filing a second Motion to Dismiss on December 30th. BehindMLM’s interest in the case however only extends as far as Integrity Marketing Group, so we’ll leave our coverage of the case there.

BehindMLM is aware of nine civil TCPA fraud lawsuits filed against Integrity, pertaining to unsolicited Family First Life marketing calls:

  1. Plaintiffs Francisco Baserva and Francisco Suescum filed suit against Family First Life LLC in October 2021 (case settled May 2023)
  2. Plaintiff Mark Dobronski filed suit against Family First Life in August 2022 (case settled January 2025)
  3. Plaintiff Don Campbell filed suit against Integrity Marketing Group in September 2022 (case settled in April 2023)
  4. Plaintiff Robert Salomon filed suit against Family First Life in March 2023 (case settled October 2023)
  5. Plaintiff Aaron Rapp filed suit against IMG (dba Family First Life) in June 2023 (case settled July 2024)
  6. Plaintiff Terri Nichols filed suit against Integrity Marketing Group in September 2023 (case settled December 2023)
  7. Plaintiff Wes Newman filed suit against Integrity Marketing Group (see Nichols link above) in April 2024 (case settled April 2026)
  8. Plaintiff Steve Noviello filed suit against Integrity LLC in October 2024 (case settled February 2025)
  9. Plaintiff James Calhoun filed an amended petition against Integrity Marketing Group on December 6th, 2024 (case dismissed as to Integrity Marketing Group on December 30th, 2025)

Given at least nine TCPA lawsuits have now been filed against Integrity and/or Family First Life, clearly this is an ongoing issue for the company.

TCPA is regulated federally by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Whether the FCC has opened an investigation into Integrity and Family First Life is unclear.