Alan Grochowski, Sr.: The TCPA Plaintiff Continuing the Fight Against QuoteWizard’s Lead-Gen Machine

 

Alan Grochowski, Sr. is a TCPA class action plaintiff who took legal action against QuoteWizard.com, LLC, the same company that paid $5 million to settle the Mantha case and later agreed to pay $19 million to resolve related claims. Unlike the serial litigators covered elsewhere in this series (Dobronski, Callier, Ewing, Sheldon, Hastings), Grochowski is not a high-volume filer. He is not a professional plaintiff. He is not someone who used a fake name or has a stalking conviction. He is simply a consumer who says he received unwanted prerecorded calls and text messages from QuoteWizard, even though his number was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.

The lawsuit, Grochowski v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC (Case No. 9:24-cv-80379), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in early 2024. Grochowski is attempting to represent a class of consumers who received similar unlawful communications. The case ties closely into the landmark Mantha v. QuoteWizard litigation, and several of the core legal arguments Grochowski raised about “bad leads” have since been backed up by the outcome of that related case.

Legal commentators, defense firms, and consumer advocates have been paying attention to Grochowski v. QuoteWizard because it shows that lead-generation companies cannot simply resolve one lawsuit and assume they are in the clear; they need to guarantee compliance across every part of their marketing operation. The case also points to a growing trend where plaintiffs are sidestepping technical debates about dialing equipment and instead focusing on National Do Not Call Registry violations and prerecorded voice messages, both of which give them a more direct route to success in today’s TCPA litigation landscape.

Who Is Alan Grochowski, Sr.? A Florida Consumer, Not a Serial Litigator

Alan Grochowski, Sr. is a Florida resident who became a named plaintiff in a TCPA class action against QuoteWizard.com, LLC. Unlike the professional plaintiffs profiled elsewhere in this series, Grochowski has no history of dozens of lawsuits or questionable litigation habits.

Here is what is known about Grochowski:

• Full name: Alan Grochowski, Sr.
• Location: Florida, within the Southern District of Florida
• Role: Proposed class representative
• Number of TCPA cases: One major case, against QuoteWizard
• Legal training: None known
• Manufactured claims: None alleged; his complaint centers on genuine unwanted calls

The distinction between Grochowski and the serial litigators is stark. He has filed just one major case, compared to the fifteen to sixty or more cases tied to repeat filers. He has not engaged in high-volume filing, has not used fake names the way Hastings did when he used “Marvin Taeese,” and has no manufactured claims attached to his name. He carries no criminal history, unlike some serial litigants such as Ewing, who has a stalking conviction. He has never received a judicial warning, and he has never faced a fraud counterclaim, something Hastings has dealt with directly.

What this reveals is straightforward: Alan Grochowski, Sr. looks like an ordinary consumer, a Florida resident who received prerecorded calls and text messages he did not want and chose to take legal action. He is not operating a litigation enterprise. He is not filing a stack of lawsuits. By all appearances, he is a legitimate plaintiff with a real grievance.

The Case: Grochowski v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC

Alan Grochowski, Sr. filed a class action lawsuit against QuoteWizard.com, LLC, a company that helps insurance agents connect with potential customers, alleging violations of the TCPA. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Case No. 9:24-cv-80379.

Case overview: The matter is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It was filed in early 2024, with Alan Grochowski, Sr. named as plaintiff and QuoteWizard.com, LLC as defendant. The central issues involve National Do Not Call Registry violations and prerecorded call violations. As it stands, the case remains active, with the Florida plaintiff’s claims permitted to move forward.

The Allegations

The Grochowski lawsuit centers on two main TCPA violations. The first involves the National Do Not Call Registry. Grochowski claims that QuoteWizard placed calls to people whose numbers were listed on the DNCR, something that is not permitted unless the individual gave prior express written consent. The second involves prerecorded messages. QuoteWizard reportedly used prerecorded voices to deliver marketing messages, and if the company did not secure written consent beforehand, this amounts to a violation.

A notable feature of Grochowski’s case is its deep technical focus on the “Drips” platform, a conversational SMS tool. He argues that even when a message resembles a back-and-forth “chat,” it still counts as an automated system governed by the TCPA if the underlying consent was not “express and written.”

The Proposed Classes

Grochowski is seeking to certify two separate classes. The first is the Robocall Class, defined as all persons in the United States who received one or more calls on their cellular telephone from or on behalf of QuoteWizard using a prerecorded message within four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The second is the National Do Not Call Registry Class, defined as all persons whose residential telephone numbers were on the DNCR for at least 31 days but who nonetheless received more than one telephone solicitation call, text message, or combination of the two from QuoteWizard within a 12-month period.

The Jurisdictional Ruling: Florida Plaintiffs Only

In an important early ruling, the court dismissed claims from non-Florida plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction, while allowing the Florida plaintiff’s claims, meaning Grochowski’s, to proceed.

This matters because it underscores how central jurisdiction is to TCPA class actions. QuoteWizard successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over claims brought by plaintiffs located outside Florida. Even so, Grochowski’s Florida-based claims survived the challenge and remain active.

The Connection to the Mantha Litigation

The Grochowski case is tightly linked to Mantha v. QuoteWizard, the landmark case in which Joseph Mantha turned down a $100,000 personal settlement in order to protect the broader class, ultimately leading to a $5 million settlement.

The two cases connect in several ways. Both target the same defendant, QuoteWizard.com, LLC. Both involve similar allegations of unlawful telemarketing communications. Both challenge QuoteWizard’s practice of buying leads from third-party sources. And both argue that QuoteWizard’s consent disclosures fell short of what the law requires.

By 2025, what might be called the “Mantha Intersection” had taken shape. Though brought by a different lead plaintiff, the Mantha settlement, finalized in September 2025, effectively resolved the text message portion of the claims Grochowski had been pursuing. QuoteWizard paid $19 million to settle claims tied to unsolicited texts sent to numbers registered on the DNC list.

By early 2026, many of the core legal arguments Grochowski raised about “bad leads” had been validated by the outcome of the Mantha litigation. The Mantha settlement confirmed that QuoteWizard’s lead-generation practices fell legally short of what compliance required.

The “Lead-Gen Meltdown”: QuoteWizard’s Growing Liability

In 2025, Grochowski’s background surfaced in reporting about what some called a “lead-gen meltdown.” His case revealed that QuoteWizard had purchased leads that allegedly lacked proper consent disclosures, a technical shortfall that has already cost the company tens of millions of dollars across multiple court dockets.

QuoteWizard’s liability has piled up over time. The Mantha v. QuoteWizard case settled for $5,000,000 over text message claims. Related DNCR and text claims settled separately for $19,000,000. The Grochowski v. QuoteWizard case remains ongoing, centered on prerecorded calls and DNCR violations, and could add several million more to the total.

The bottom line is simple: QuoteWizard’s lead-generation practices have already cost the company tens of millions of dollars, and the Grochowski case could push that figure even higher.

The “Lead Gen” Defense Under Scrutiny

Much like Mantha before it, the Grochowski case closely examines how QuoteWizard obtains consumer data in the first place.

QuoteWizard’s defense generally rests on the claim that it buys consumer information from third-party websites and relies on the consent those websites supposedly obtained. Grochowski’s position is that he never gave QuoteWizard permission to call him, and the fact that QuoteWizard purchased his information from someone else does not manufacture valid consent out of thin air.

Based on how the Mantha case played out, the likely judicial view is that companies like QuoteWizard bear responsibility for confirming they have the right to contact people before they do so. If the company that sold them the lead did something improper, QuoteWizard can still be held liable. Simply saying “we bought the lead” is not treated as an adequate defense.

Legal Stakes and Financial Implications

Grochowski wants to represent a broader group of people who received calls similar to the ones he says he got. If he prevails, QuoteWizard would face substantial financial exposure.

Under the TCPA, a standard violation carries damages of $500 per call or text, while a willful violation can carry damages of up to $1,500 per call or text. Multiplied across a certified class, that exposure could reach into the millions of dollars.

This case matters because, even after settling the Mantha case for $5 million and related claims for $19 million, QuoteWizard still faces additional exposure. The Grochowski case zeroes in on prerecorded calls and DNCR violations, claims that were not fully addressed by the Mantha settlement, which focused mainly on text messages.

As TCPAWorld put it, this case matters because it shows that companies like QuoteWizard cannot simply settle one lawsuit and assume they are safe going forward. They have to keep doing things correctly across the board, all the time.

The “Drips” Platform: Technical Focus

Grochowski’s case includes a deep technical focus on the “Drips” platform, a conversational SMS tool used by QuoteWizard.

His core argument is that even if a communication resembles a natural back-and-forth “chat,” it remains an automated system governed by the TCPA if consent was not obtained in an express, written form. This matters because companies frequently argue that conversational SMS tools do not qualify as “autodialers” under the TCPA. Grochowski’s case pushes back on that distinction, arguing that the substance and nature of the communication should carry more weight than the specific technology behind it.

What the Grochowski Case Means for Digital Marketing

The Grochowski v. QuoteWizard case offers several important lessons for any company that relies on lead generation or purchased leads.

First, verify consent directly. Make sure you actually have the right to contact people, and check where the leads originated to confirm the individuals knew they were signing up for calls. Second, respect the DNCR. Do not simply take a lead provider’s word that a list has been scrubbed against the National Do Not Call Registry; verify it independently. Third, be transparent about data handling. Avoid using tactics that trick people into signing up for something they did not intend to, since this is essential both for building customer trust and for avoiding litigation. Fourth, remember that one settlement is not enough. Resolving a single case does not shield a company from future claims, so ongoing compliance across all marketing channels is essential. Fifth, prerecorded calls require written consent. The TCPA demands prior express written consent for prerecorded telemarketing calls, not implied consent and not consent obtained secondhand through a third party.

How Grochowski Compares to Other Plaintiffs in This Series

When placed alongside Joseph Mantha and the serial litigators covered elsewhere in this series (Ewing, Sheldon, Hastings), Grochowski’s profile stands apart. He has filed just one TCPA case, the same as Mantha, compared to fifteen to sixty or more filed by serial litigators. He has not engaged in high-volume filing, has not used fake names, and has no manufactured claims, all traits shared with Mantha but not with the serial filers. He has no criminal history and has never received a judicial warning, again mirroring Mantha rather than the repeat litigants, some of whom carry stalking convictions. Unlike Mantha, Grochowski did not reject a six-figure personal settlement, since no such offer is part of the public record in his case. His case remains ongoing, whereas Mantha’s resolved for a $5 million settlement, and the serial litigators’ cases have produced varying outcomes.

What makes Grochowski similar to Mantha is that both are legitimate consumers who received unwanted communications from QuoteWizard and both filed class actions to protect a broader group of people. Neither behaves like a serial litigator. What sets Grochowski apart from Mantha is the specific focus of his claims: his case centers on prerecorded calls and DNCR violations, while Mantha’s centered primarily on text messages. In that sense, the Grochowski case represents the next wave of litigation aimed at QuoteWizard.

The Broader Trend: DNCR and Prerecorded Calls as a Clearer Path to Victory

The Grochowski case reflects a meaningful shift in TCPA litigation strategy. Where plaintiffs once focused heavily on ATDS, or autodialer, technicalities, many are now focusing on National Do Not Call Registry violations instead. Rather than arguing over whether a given system technically qualifies as an “autodialer,” plaintiffs are increasingly arguing that a consumer’s number was simply on the DNCR, a much more straightforward factual question. The older approach also required expert testimony on dialing technology, while DNCR status can often be established with far less complexity. And while autodialer arguments remain subject to the narrowing effect of Facebook v. Duguid, DNCR claims are largely unaffected by that ruling.

This matters because plaintiffs are successfully avoiding technical arguments about dialing hardware by concentrating instead on National Do Not Call Registry violations and the use of prerecorded voices, both of which offer a more direct route to victory in modern TCPA litigation. The Grochowski case is a clear example of this strategy in action.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Alan Grochowski, Sr.? Alan Grochowski, Sr. is a Florida resident who filed a TCPA class action against QuoteWizard.com, LLC, alleging unlawful prerecorded calls and violations of the National Do Not Call Registry.

Is Alan Grochowski, Sr. a serial litigator? No. Unlike Mark Dobronski, Brandon Callier, Eric Salaiz, Anton Ewing, James Sheldon, and Stanley Hastings, Grochowski has filed only one major TCPA case. He appears to be a legitimate consumer plaintiff.

What happened in Grochowski v. QuoteWizard? Grochowski alleges that QuoteWizard called him using prerecorded messages and contacted his number despite it being listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. He is seeking to represent a class of similarly affected consumers.

What was the jurisdictional ruling? The court dismissed claims from non-Florida plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction but allowed Grochowski’s Florida-based claims to proceed.

How is Grochowski connected to the Mantha case? Both cases target QuoteWizard over similar lead-generation and consent failures. The Mantha settlement, which grew to include $19 million for related claims, validated many of the legal arguments Grochowski has been making.

What is the “Drips” platform? Drips is a conversational SMS tool. Grochowski argues that even when communications resemble a natural chat exchange, they remain automated systems governed by the TCPA if consent was not express and written.

What is the “lead-gen meltdown”? It refers to QuoteWizard’s practice of purchasing leads from third parties without adequate consent disclosures, a pattern that has cost the company tens of millions of dollars across multiple lawsuits, including Mantha ($5M plus $19M) and the ongoing Grochowski case.

What damages is Grochowski seeking? He is seeking statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per violation, along with injunctive relief to stop QuoteWizard’s allegedly unlawful practices.

What is the current status of the case in 2026? The Florida plaintiff’s claims are proceeding, while claims from non-Florida plaintiffs were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Is Grochowski helping consumers? Yes. Like Joseph Mantha, Grochowski is a legitimate consumer plaintiff seeking to hold QuoteWizard accountable for its alleged unlawful telemarketing practices. If his case succeeds, it could benefit thousands of consumers who received unwanted prerecorded calls.

Final Thoughts: The Consumer Plaintiff in the Shadow of Mantha

Alan Grochowski, Sr. is not a serial litigator. He is not a professional plaintiff. He is not a convicted stalker, a deceptive witness, someone who hides behind a fake name, or a high-volume filing operation. He is a Florida consumer who says he received unwanted prerecorded calls and text messages from QuoteWizard, and he chose to fight back.

His case against QuoteWizard fits into a larger wave of litigation aimed at the company’s lead-generation practices. The Mantha case established that purchased leads do not amount to valid consent. The Grochowski case extends that same principle to prerecorded calls and DNCR violations.

The contrast with the serial litigators covered elsewhere in this series could hardly be sharper. Serial litigators such as Ewing, Sheldon, and Hastings have filed fifteen to sixty or more lawsuits, sometimes under fake names like “Marvin Taeese,” and have in some cases prolonged calls in order to manufacture damages. Some carry criminal records tied to stalking, have received judicial warnings, faced fraud counterclaims, and appear to litigate primarily for personal profit. Alan Grochowski, Sr., by contrast, filed a single lawsuit under his own name, based on genuinely unwanted calls, with no criminal history, no warnings, and no counterclaims against him, and he is pursuing relief on behalf of a class rather than for personal gain alone.

As courts and lawmakers pay closer attention to professional plaintiff abuse, legitimate consumer plaintiffs like Alan Grochowski, Sr. should not be lumped in with the serial litigators who exploit the TCPA for profit. His case serves as a reminder of the purpose the TCPA is meant to serve: protecting real consumers from unwanted prerecorded calls and violations of the Do Not Call Registry.

Alan Grochowski, Sr. received prerecorded calls he did not want. His number was on the Do Not Call Registry. He never gave his consent. He sued. That is exactly how the TCPA is supposed to work.

Sources & References

Primary Sources, Alan Grochowski, Sr. (Litigation)

• https://tcpaworld.com/2025/01/03/new-year-new-quotewizard-tcpa-class-action-quotewizard-sued-for-alleged-violations-of-the-tcpas-dncr-prerecorded-call-provisions/ (TCPAWorld, “NEW YEAR, NEW QUOTEWIZARD TCPA CLASS ACTION”)
• Grochowski v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC, Case No. 9:24-cv-80379 (S.D. Fla.)

Secondary Sources, Legal Commentary

• https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/9:2024cv80379/664737 (Justia docket, content inaccessible)
• https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68564858/grochowski-v-quotewizardcom-llc/ (CourtListener docket, content inaccessible)

Related Cases

• Mantha v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-12235 (D. Mass.), $5M settlement plus $19M for related claims

Disclaimer: This article presents information based on publicly available court filings, legal commentary, media reporting, and judicial rulings. Unlike previous profiles in this series, Alan Grochowski, Sr. is not characterized as a serial litigator or professional plaintiff; he appears to be a legitimate consumer plaintiff pursuing class relief under the TCPA. This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.