A federal judge in Seattle has refused to derail class action claims alleging that Whitepages unlawfully listed individuals’ cellphone numbers without consent, an important early win for consumers seeking accountability under Colorado’s Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act (PTFA).

In a ruling issued April 21, 2026, U.S. District Judge Tana Lin denied Whitepages’ motion to strike class allegations, allowing the case to continue as a potential class action. The court held that, based on the pleadings, it is too early to conclude that the claims cannot be litigated on a classwide basis.

Allegations of Unlawful Cellphone Listings

The lawsuit alleges that Whitepages maintained a policy of publishing consumers’ cellphone numbers in a commercial directory without first obtaining consent, in violation of Colorado law. The PTFA prohibits listing a person’s cellphone number for commercial purposes without authorization, a safeguard designed to protect consumers from deceptive telemarketing practices.

Whitepages argued that the proposed class claims should be dismissed at the outset, but Judge Lin rejected that request. The court explained that disputes over how the class is defined and whether class treatment is appropriate depend on factual issues that must be developed through litigation, not resolved at the pleading stage.

Court Rejects Early Attempts to Limit Consumer Claims

The decision came during a hearing that also addressed parallel lawsuits against RocketReach and ZoomInfo, which involve similar allegations. In the RocketReach case, the judge also declined to force the plaintiff into individual arbitration, noting the lack of evidence that a valid arbitration agreement existed, particularly where profiles could be viewed by the public without creating an account.

All three companies are continuing to seek dismissal of the underlying claims, but the court’s ruling ensures that consumers will have the opportunity to pursue those claims collectively as the cases move forward.

Skepticism of First Amendment Defense

The defendants have also argued that the PTFA violates the First Amendment by restricting the online publication of phone numbers. Judge Lin expressed skepticism of that argument, indicating that the challenged conduct appears to involve commercial speech, which receives less constitutional protection than other forms of expression.

During oral argument, plaintiffs emphasized that the defendants’ platforms are marketed to businesses as tools for finding sales leads, a commercial use squarely covered by the statute. Regulations governing such activity, the court suggested, may withstand constitutional scrutiny when they serve substantial consumer protection interests.

Emery | Reddy Representing Consumers

Emery | Reddy, PC is co-counsel representing plaintiffs in these cases, alongside Bursor & Fisher, P.A. The firm is committed to holding data brokers and online directories accountable when they profit from the unauthorized use of consumers’ personal information. This ruling marks an important step forward for individuals seeking to enforce privacy and consumer protection laws in the digital marketplace. As the case proceeds, Emery | Reddy will continue advocating for consumers whose personal data was allegedly exploited without consent.