Cindy Carroll: The TCPA Plaintiff Taking on Sunflora’s CBD Robocall Machine
Cindy Carroll, also known as Cynthia Carroll, is a Florida consumer who became the named plaintiff in a significant TCPA class action against Sunflora, Inc., the parent company of Your CBD Store. Unlike the high-volume serial litigators profiled elsewhere in this series such as Dobronski, Callier, Salaiz, Ewing, and Sheldon, Carroll appears to be a legitimate consumer plaintiff who received unwanted prerecorded robocalls promoting CBD products and decided to take legal action.
Carroll is not a professional plaintiff. She is not a high-volume filer. She does not manufacture claims using fake names or prolonged call tactics. She is a consumer who alleges she was bombarded with illegal robocalls from a company she never consented to hear from, and she is fighting back under the TCPA and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).
Legal commentators, defense firms, and consumer advocates have closely followed Carroll v. Sunflora, Inc. because it raises critical questions about vicarious liability for franchise marketing practices, the enforceability of arbitration clauses and class action waivers in privacy policies, and the growing problem of CBD industry robocalls. The case is a warning to every company that uses prerecorded marketing messages: consent must be clear, opt-out must be easy, and corporate parents may be liable for the actions of their franchisees.
Who Is Cindy Carroll? A Florida Consumer, Not a Serial Litigator
Cindy Carroll, also known as Cynthia Carroll, is a Florida resident who became the named plaintiff in a proposed class action against Sunflora, Inc. Unlike the professional plaintiffs profiled elsewhere, Carroll does not have a history of dozens of lawsuits or questionable litigation tactics.
What we know about Carroll, converted from table format:
• Full Name: Cindy Carroll, also known as Cynthia Carroll
• Location: Florida, Middle District of Florida
• Role: Proposed class representative
• Number of TCPA cases: 1 major case against Sunflora
• Legal training: None known
• Manufactured claims: No; she alleges genuine unwanted calls
Key distinctions from serial litigators, converted from comparison table format:
• Number of TCPA cases: Carroll has 1 major case; serial litigators have filed 15 to 60 or more
• Filing pattern: Carroll filed a single targeted lawsuit; serial litigators file high-volume, multi-jurisdictional complaints
• Manufactured claims: No genuine unwanted calls for Carroll; serial litigators use fake names and prolonged call tactics
• Fake names used: None for Carroll; Hastings used Marvin Taeese
• Criminal history: None for Carroll; some serial litigators have stalking convictions such as Ewing
• Judicial warnings: None for Carroll; Ewing and Sheldon received multiple warnings
• Fraud counterclaims: None for Carroll; Hastings faces active fraud claims
Cindy Carroll is an ordinary consumer, a Florida resident who received unwanted prerecorded calls promoting CBD products and decided to take legal action. She is not running a litigation enterprise. She is not filing dozens of lawsuits. By all appearances, she is a legitimate plaintiff with a genuine grievance.
The Case: Carroll v. Sunflora, Inc. (Your CBD Store)
In August 2024, Cindy Carroll filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Sunflora, Inc., which does business as Your CBD Store. The case number is 8:24-cv-02047.
Case overview, converted from table format:
• Court: U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
• Filing Date: August 2024
• Plaintiff: Cindy Carroll, also known as Cynthia Carroll
• Defendant: Sunflora, Inc., doing business as Your CBD Store
• Key Issue: Unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls promoting CBD products
• Statutes: TCPA (47 U.S.C. Section 227) and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA)
The allegations, converted from table format:
• No consent: Carroll never agreed to receive such calls
• Prerecorded voice: The calls used an artificial or prerecorded voice without a live human
• Promotional content: The calls promoted CBD discounts to induce engagement
• Franchise marketing: Calls allegedly originated from or were authorized by Sunflora’s franchise network
As part of her 2026 litigation strategy, Carroll has focused on documenting the specific mechanical nature of the calls, highlighting the absence of a live human and the immediate playback of a script as her primary evidence.
The Legal Claims: TCPA and FTSA Combined
Carroll’s lawsuit includes claims under two statutes, converted from table format:
• TCPA (47 U.S.C. Section 227): Prohibits prerecorded telemarketing calls without prior express written consent; damages range from $500 to $1,500 per violation
• Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA): Florida’s state-level robocall protection law; provides independent state penalties
Unlike earlier filings, Carroll’s 2026 strategy explicitly pursues treble damages of $1,500 per call instead of $500. She argues that because the calls promoted a sale at a specific storefront, the defendant had direct knowledge and control over the marketing campaign, making the violation intentional and willful.
Why This Case Is Important: Vicarious Liability for Franchise Marketing
The Carroll v. Sunflora case raises issues that extend far beyond one plaintiff’s claims.
1. The Post-Facebook v. Duguid Shift
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook v. Duguid, which narrowed the definition of an autodialer, plaintiffs have shifted their focus. Now they are looking at what the calls say, not just how the calls are made. Carroll’s case exemplifies this shift. She focuses on the prerecorded voice content, not just the dialing technology.
2. Vicarious Liability for Franchisees
Carroll’s current litigation involves a deep investigation into the relationship between Sunflora, the parent company, and its individual franchisees. She is attempting to prove that the corporate entity is vicariously liable for the robocalling practices of its local stores.
The key legal questions and Carroll’s positions, converted from table format:
• Is Sunflora responsible for its franchisees’ calls? Carroll’s position: Yes; the parent company controls marketing
• Did Sunflora have direct knowledge of the campaign? Carroll’s position: Yes; the calls promoted specific storefronts
• Did Sunflora have control over the marketing? Carroll’s position: Yes; corporate-wide CBD promotion
CBD stores typically only obtain contact information when a consumer signs up or makes a purchase. The central question is whether Sunflora’s terms of service and privacy policy are sufficient to constitute prior express written consent.
3. The Opt-Out Roadblock
Sunflora’s privacy policy revealed an opt-out process that legal commentators have described as more of a roadblock than a user-friendly feature.
The opt-out problems, converted from table format:
• No STOP button: Customers must email a specific address to opt out
• Cumbersome process: A friction-filled approach designed to reduce opt-out rates
• Corporate strategy: Prioritizes retention over respect for consumer choice
As the National Law Review noted: When companies make opting out harder than opting in, it is not just poor design. It is a calculated move to prioritize profit over principle.
4. The No Right of Action Disclaimer
Sunflora’s privacy policy contained this remarkable disclaimer: NOTHING IN THIS PRIVACY POLICY IS INTENDED TO CREATE OR PROVIDE ANY RIGHT OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION.
Legal analysts called this a subtle yet powerful play by Sunflora, an attempt to dodge liability by stripping its privacy policy of any enforceable commitments. Courts are becoming more critical of these barriers, often questioning whether they genuinely serve consumer protection or act as tools to retain marketing reach.
5. Arbitration Clauses and Class Action Waivers
Sunflora’s terms of service include arbitration clauses and class action waivers that could derail Carroll’s efforts to bring claims on behalf of a broader group. This is a common defense tactic, forcing individual arbitration instead of class litigation.
The Florida Telephone Solicitation Act: A State-Level TCPA
Carroll’s lawsuit includes claims under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA), Florida’s state-level equivalent of the TCPA.
A comparison of TCPA and FTSA, converted from table format:
• TCPA (Federal): Prohibits prerecorded calls without consent; provides a private right of action; damages of $500 to $1,500 per violation; class actions permitted
• FTSA (Florida): Prohibits prerecorded calls without consent; provides a private right of action; provides state penalties; class actions permitted
Even if the TCPA claims face hurdles due to the Facebook v. Duguid autodialer narrowing, the FTSA provides an independent basis for liability under Florida state law. This is a common strategy among TCPA plaintiffs: stacking federal and state claims to maximize recovery.
The Demand for Injunctive Relief
Carroll is not just asking for damages. Her complaint demands injunctive relief to stop Sunflora from continuing its alleged unsolicited robocall campaign.
The remedies sought, converted from table format:
• Damages: Compensation for past violations at $500 to $1,500 per call
• Injunctive relief: Force Sunflora to change its marketing practices going forward
• Class certification: Allow all similarly situated consumers to recover
If a class is certified, Sunflora’s potential liability could reach millions of dollars in statutory damages.
The Current Status (2026)
The current litigation status, converted from table format:
• Filing date: August 2024
• Current phase: Active litigation
• Key battlegrounds: Class certification, arbitration clauses, and vicarious liability
• Dismissed claims: Some parts of the lawsuit were dropped
• Core claims: The main TCPA and FTSA claims are still being litigated
The core issue, Sunflora’s alleged use of prerecorded robocalls without consent, is still being evaluated by the court. As the National Law Review noted, the main compliance problem with Sunflora’s marketing is still being assessed.
How Carroll Compares to Other Plaintiffs in This Series
A comparison of Carroll to serial litigators, converted from table format:
• Number of TCPA cases: Carroll has 1; serial litigators have 15 to 60 or more
• High-volume filing: No for Carroll; yes for serial litigators
• Fake names used: No for Carroll; Hastings used Marvin Taeese
• Manufactured claims: No for Carroll; serial litigators prolonged calls and faked interest
• Fraud counterclaims: None for Carroll; Hastings faces active fraud claims
• Criminal history: None for Carroll; Ewing has a stalking conviction
• Judicial warnings: None for Carroll; Ewing and Sheldon received multiple warnings
• Legal training: None for Carroll; some serial litigators are paralegals or attorneys
Carroll is exactly the kind of plaintiff the TCPA was designed to protect, a consumer who received unwanted prerecorded calls and decided to take legal action without deception, without manufactured standing, and without a serial filing enterprise behind her.
What the Carroll Case Means for Businesses, Especially Franchises
The Carroll v. Sunflora case is a warning for every company that uses prerecorded marketing messages, especially franchise systems. The lessons, converted from table format, are as follows:
• Get clear consent: You must be explicit when asking for permission to call or text. You cannot assume someone wants calls simply because they bought something from you
• Make opt-out easy: You must make it simple for people to stop receiving calls or texts. Email-only opt-out is likely insufficient
• Review privacy policies: Your privacy policy must be clear and honest. Disclaimers like no right of action may backfire in court
• Corporate parents may be liable: Vicarious liability for franchise marketing practices is a real and growing risk
• Arbitration clauses are not guarantees: Courts are increasingly skeptical of class action waivers buried in fine print
The Eric Carroll Distinction: Not Related
It is important to note that there is another case involving a different Carroll, specifically Eric Carroll, who filed Carroll v. Staples, Inc. in March 2026 in the Massachusetts District Court.
The distinction, converted from table format:
• Cindy Carroll: TCPA plaintiff against Sunflora (Your CBD Store) in the Middle District of Florida
• Eric Carroll: Plaintiff in a data breach and privacy action against Staples in Massachusetts
These are different plaintiffs with the same last name and should not be confused.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Cindy Carroll?
Cindy Carroll, also known as Cynthia Carroll, is a Florida consumer who filed a TCPA class action against Sunflora, Inc. (Your CBD Store) alleging illegal prerecorded robocalls promoting CBD products.
Is Cindy Carroll a serial litigator?
No. Unlike Mark Dobronski, Brandon Callier, Eric Salaiz, Anton Ewing, James Sheldon, and Stanley Hastings, Carroll appears to have filed only one major TCPA case. She is a legitimate consumer plaintiff, not a professional litigant.
What happened in Carroll v. Sunflora?
Carroll alleges that Sunflora bombarded her with prerecorded robocalls promoting CBD products without her consent. She is suing under the TCPA and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
What is the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act?
Florida’s state-level robocall protection law. It provides an independent basis for liability even if TCPA claims face hurdles following the Facebook v. Duguid autodialer narrowing.
What damages is Carroll seeking?
She is seeking treble damages of $1,500 per call instead of the standard $500, arguing that Sunflora’s violations were willful and intentional because the company had direct knowledge and control over the marketing campaign.
What is the problem with Sunflora’s opt-out process?
Sunflora required customers to email a specific address to opt out, with no STOP button and no easy unsubscribe option. Courts are becoming more critical of these cumbersome barriers.
What did Sunflora’s privacy policy say?
It included the disclaimer: NOTHING IN THIS PRIVACY POLICY IS INTENDED TO CREATE OR PROVIDE ANY RIGHT OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION. Legal analysts called this an attempt to dodge liability by stripping the policy of enforceable commitments.
Is Sunflora liable for its franchisees’ calls?
That is the central legal question in the case. Carroll is attempting to prove that Sunflora, as the parent company, is vicariously liable for the robocalling practices of its local franchise stores.
What is the current status of the case as of 2026?
The case is in active litigation. Some parts have been dismissed, but the core TCPA and FTSA claims are still proceeding. Class certification and arbitration clauses remain the primary battleground issues.
Is Carroll helping consumers?
Yes. Unlike the professional plaintiffs profiled elsewhere who exploit the TCPA for profit, Carroll’s case seeks to stop illegal robocalls and force Sunflora to change its marketing practices. She is exactly the kind of plaintiff the TCPA was designed to protect.
Final Thoughts: The Consumer Plaintiff Fighting CBD Robocalls
Cindy Carroll is not a serial litigator. She is not a professional plaintiff. She is not a convicted stalker, a deceptive witness, a fake name user, or a high-volume filing machine. She is a Florida consumer who received unwanted prerecorded robocalls promoting CBD products and decided to fight back.
Her case against Sunflora is a textbook example of what TCPA litigation should look like: a genuine consumer grievance, a corporate defendant that allegedly made illegal calls, and a legal framework designed to stop the harassment. The case also raises important questions about vicarious liability for franchise marketing, the enforceability of arbitration clauses, and the adequacy of opt-out mechanisms.
The contrast with the serial litigators profiled elsewhere in this series could not be sharper. Serial litigators file 15 to 60 or more lawsuits, use fake names such as Marvin Taeese, prolong calls to manufacture damages, carry criminal records, receive judicial warnings, and face fraud counterclaims. Carroll filed one lawsuit, uses her real name, genuinely received unwanted calls, has no criminal history, has received no warnings, and faces no counterclaims.
As courts and legislators increasingly scrutinize professional plaintiff abuse, legitimate consumer plaintiffs like Cindy Carroll should not be confused with the serial litigators who exploit the TCPA for profit. Cindy Carroll received unwanted prerecorded calls. She never consented. She sued. That is exactly how the TCPA is supposed to work.
Sources and References
Primary Sources: Cindy Carroll (Litigation)
Carroll v. Sunflora, Inc., 8:24-cv-02047 (M.D. Fla. filed August 2024)
Secondary Sources: Legal Commentary
TCPAWorld, coverage of Sunflora robocall lawsuit
National Law Review, analysis of FTSA and TCPA claims
Additional Context: Different Carroll Cases, Not Related
Carroll v. Staples, Inc., filed March 2026 (Mass. District Court); involves Eric Carroll, not Cindy Carroll; data breach and privacy action
Dockets
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flmdce/8:2024cv02047/431640
Disclaimer: This article presents information based on publicly available court filings, legal commentary, media reporting, and judicial rulings. Unlike previous profiles in this series, Cindy Carroll is not characterized as a serial litigator or professional plaintiff. She appears to be a legitimate consumer plaintiff using the TCPA as intended. This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
