California Federal Court Dismisses TCPA Autodialer Claim but Allows Prerecorded Voice Claim to Proceed

Case Snapshot

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Case: Cruz v. United Collection Bureau Inc., 2026 WL 3062149
Decision Date: Oct. 13, 2026
Core Issue: Whether collection calls violated the TCPA’s ATDS or artificial/prerecorded voice provisions.
Key Allegation: UCB continued calling Cruz’s cellphone using prohibited technology after his attorney allegedly revoked consent.
Court Holding: LiveVox HCI did not qualify as an ATDS under the evidence presented, but conflicting testimony created a triable factual issue concerning artificial or prerecorded voice use.
Outcome: Partial summary judgment granted for UCB on the ATDS claim and denied on the artificial or prerecorded voice claim.
Notable Detail: The plaintiff’s firsthand descriptions of robotic-sounding calls were sufficient to survive summary judgment despite conflicting testimony from UCB’s compliance director.

A federal court in California has granted partial summary judgment to United Collection Bureau Inc. (UCB) in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuit, dismissing claims that the debt collector used an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) while allowing allegations involving artificial or prerecorded voice calls to proceed.

In Cruz v. United Collection Bureau Inc., 2026 WL 3062149 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2026), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California determined that UCB’s LiveVox HCI dialing platform did not qualify as an ATDS under federal law. However, the court found sufficient conflicting evidence concerning the alleged use of artificial or prerecorded voices to warrant further proceedings.

Court Finds LiveVox HCI Does Not Qualify as an ATDS

The dispute arose from UCB’s efforts to collect a delinquent Citibank account belonging to plaintiff Jesus Cruz.

In October 2023, Cruz’s attorney mailed UCB a cease-and-desist letter directing the company to stop contacting his client and revoking any previous consent to receive calls, including those using artificial or prerecorded voices.

UCB maintained that it never received the letter and continued placing collection calls. Cruz subsequently filed suit, alleging violations of the TCPA.

UCB argued that its LiveVox HCI platform did not meet the statutory definition of an ATDS because it lacked the ability to generate telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator.

Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Facebook Inc. v. Duguid, the court agreed. Cruz failed to present evidence contradicting UCB’s description of the dialing system or establishing that it possessed the required number-generation capabilities. The court therefore granted summary judgment in UCB’s favor on the ATDS claim.

Prerecorded Voice Allegations Survive Summary Judgment

The court reached a different conclusion regarding Cruz’s allegations that UCB used artificial or prerecorded voices.

UCB’s compliance director testified that company policy prohibited the use of artificial or prerecorded voices on Citibank accounts. After reviewing account records and available call recordings, she stated that no such technology had been used.

Cruz disputed that account, describing calls containing identical messages, consistent cadence, noticeable pauses and voices that sounded robotic or prerecorded.

UCB challenged portions of Cruz’s supplemental declaration, arguing that they contradicted his earlier deposition testimony and should be excluded under the sham affidavit rule. 

The court rejected that argument, finding no clear and unambiguous contradiction between his deposition and subsequent declaration. It also determined that Cruz’s firsthand descriptions of the calls constituted evidence that a reasonable jury could credit, even without independent corroboration. Consequently, the court denied summary judgment on the artificial or prerecorded voice claim, leaving that issue unresolved.

Implications for Debt Collection Operations

The ruling reinforces an important compliance distinction for accounts receivable management companies: A dialing platform that does not qualify as an ATDS may still be used in calls that violate the TCPA’s separate artificial or prerecorded voice restrictions.

For collection agencies, the decision highlights several operational considerations.

First, documentation of a dialing platform’s technical capabilities can be critical when defending ATDS allegations. UCB successfully established that LiveVox HCI lacked the random or sequential number-generation functionality required under Duguid.

Second, internal policies prohibiting prerecorded messages may not conclusively establish that such messages were never used. The court permitted Cruz’s claim to proceed despite testimony from UCB’s compliance director.

Third, maintaining accurate call recordings, account notes and communication records may help agencies address disputes concerning the technologies used during collection calls.

Finally, the underlying disagreement over whether UCB received Cruz’s consent revocation illustrates the importance of procedures for receiving, documenting and processing consumer communication requests.

The decision does not establish that UCB violated the TCPA. It determines only that sufficient evidence exists for the prerecorded voice allegations to proceed beyond summary judgment.