California Court Dismisses Podium From TCPA Lawsuit on Jurisdictional Grounds

Case Snapshot

• Case: Gaines v. LPC Survival, Ltd., No. 2:25-cv-08495 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2026)
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
• Decision Date: June 16, 2026
• Area of Law: Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Personal Jurisdiction
• Key Issue: Whether the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California could exercise personal jurisdiction over Podium Corporation in a third-party complaint alleging the company was responsible for TCPA compliance failures related to marketing text messages.
• Ruling: The court dismissed Podium from the third-party complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. It did not rule on whether Podium was liable for the alleged TCPA violations or on the merits of LPC Survival’s claims against the company.

A federal court in California has dismissed Podium Corporation from a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuit, finding it lacked personal jurisdiction over the Utah-based company. The ruling leaves the underlying TCPA claims against LPC Survival Ltd., which does business as US Berkey Filters, to continue while separating the dispute between the business and its marketing platform.

The decision stems from Gaines v. LPC Survival, Ltd., where plaintiff Nathan Gaines alleges he continued receiving promotional text messages after replying “STOP” to opt out, potentially violating the TCPA’s National Do Not Call provisions.

While the court’s order focused solely on jurisdiction, the case also highlights a broader issue for businesses that rely on third-party communication platforms: determining who bears responsibility when compliance failures are alleged.

TCPA Claims Led to Third-Party Complaint

According to court filings, LPC Survival argued that it relied on Podium’s platform to manage customer communications and alleged that the vendor was responsible for ensuring opt-out requests were properly processed. If LPC is ultimately found liable for the alleged TCPA violations, it contends Podium should bear responsibility through claims including breach of contract, negligence, indemnity, and declaratory relief.

Podium responded by asking the court to dismiss the third-party complaint. The company argued the California court lacked personal jurisdiction over it, challenged venue based on a Utah forum-selection clause in its terms of service, and also sought dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Court Finds No Personal Jurisdiction Over Podium

In its June 16 ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California concluded that Podium was not subject to either general or specific personal jurisdiction in California.

The court noted that Podium is incorporated in Delaware, headquartered in Lehi, Utah, and does not maintain offices or real property in California. It also found that LPC failed to provide sufficient factual evidence establishing that Podium had the minimum contacts with California required for the court to exercise jurisdiction.

Podium also submitted evidence stating that LPC, not Podium, controlled the content of the text messages and selected the recipients. LPC did not submit competing evidence to rebut those assertions during the jurisdictional challenge.

As a result, the court dismissed Podium from the California action without reaching the merits of the underlying contractual or negligence claims.

Venue Question Remains Separate

Although Podium pointed to a contractual provision requiring disputes to be litigated in Utah, the court declined to dismiss the case on venue grounds.

Instead, it explained that forum-selection clauses generally must be enforced through a motion to transfer under federal law rather than through a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue. Because the court resolved the matter on personal jurisdiction, it did not consider Podium’s separate argument that the complaint failed to state a claim.

What the Decision Means for Businesses

The ruling does not determine whether Podium bears responsibility for the alleged TCPA violations or whether LPC’s claims against the vendor have merit. Instead, it addresses only whether those claims can be litigated in a California federal court.

However, the dispute underscores the operational and legal risks businesses face when outsourcing customer communications to third-party vendors. Marketing platforms, CRM providers, and messaging vendors often play a significant role in managing consent records, opt-out requests, and automated communications. 

When alleged compliance failures occur, businesses may seek to shift liability through contractual indemnification or negligence claims, while vendors may contest responsibility based on contractual terms or jurisdictional issues.

The case also serves as a reminder that forum-selection clauses and jurisdictional provisions can significantly affect where disputes are litigated, potentially requiring related claims to proceed in different courts.

The underlying TCPA lawsuit against LPC Survival remains pending, while any claims the company wishes to pursue against Podium would likely need to be brought in a court with proper jurisdiction.