Her Lawsuit Says an AI Voice Ignored Her 'No' and Named DV Injury Law

On or about February 5, 2026, an El Paso County woman answered her cell phone and, her federal complaint says, heard no human being on the line. "Instead, the Call used an artificial, AI-generated voice," the complaint states. The voice asked about injuries. She said, more than once, that the subject did not pertain to her. It asked about injuries to her family. She said no again. "Despite Plaintiff's repeated declinations, the AI Voice continued to solicit Plaintiff to obtain legal services." When she asked who was calling, the complaint says, the voice gave a name: "DV Injury Law PLLC." On July 10, she sued in El Paso, asking for a $50,000 Texas barratry penalty per class member from each firm.

The case, No. 3:26-cv-01884, sits before Judge David C. Guaderrama in the Western District of Texas. The original complaint names DV Injury Law, PLLC, HAH, LLP and Heilbrun Law, LLP, which it describes as affiliated firms sharing one Farmington Hills, Michigan address. A corrected amended complaint followed the same day, and summonses issued to DV Injury Law, HAH, Heilbrun Legal, APC and one individual lawyer. Every allegation below is unproven. The defendants waived service in September, and no answer or motion appears on the public docket as of its September 3 update.

The call, in the complaint's words

The complaint says the call came on or about February 5 and that the caller ID did not identify any of the firms. The voice "began asking Plaintiff a series of questions concerning potential injuries." When the plaintiff asked for an address, it gave the Michigan business address the firms publish. She had no relationship with any of them, the complaint says, and had never given her number to any of them.

The complaint then describes the call as one unit of a larger operation: "To feed their high-volume mass-tort practice, Defendants deploy an automated, artificial-voice calling platform to solicit prospective clients en masse, placing materially identical artificial-voice calls to thousands of cellular telephone numbers without the prior express consent of the persons called." The practice areas it lists read like a mass-tort docket sheet: Suboxone, PFAS, Ozempic, CPAP, AFFF, Zantac, Port-a-Cath, hair relaxer, talcum powder, Roundup, Camp Lejeune, hernia mesh, Depo Provera and OxBryta.

The AI Voice continued to solicit Plaintiff after she expressly and repeatedly declined.

Where the numbers came from

The complaint's account of where the numbers came from is its most specific passage. On information and belief, it alleges, the firms "placed these calls from lead lists and dialing records without verifying that the persons called had given prior express consent and without verifying that the telephone numbers called remained assigned to any person who had requested contact." Some of those numbers, the complaint says, had been reassigned from earlier subscribers. In the plaintiff's telling, the firms did not verify consent or whether the numbers still belonged to people who had asked to be contacted.

The FCC had already addressed AI voices nearly two years before the call. In a February 2024 declaratory ruling, the Federal Communications Commission confirmed that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's limits on artificial voices reach AI-generated ones. The complaint leans on that ruling: "An AI-generated or AI-cloned voice is an 'artificial voice' within the meaning of § 227(b)."

The price tag the complaint puts on one call

The plaintiff pleads four claims from a single call: the federal TCPA, the Texas mini-TCPA, Texas's telephone-solicitor registration statute, and Texas's anti-barratry statute. The barratry count carries the weight. The complaint says the statute makes unlawful telephone solicitation of legal work actionable and, for suits filed on or after September 1, 2025, "carries a $50,000 statutory penalty recoverable from each person who engaged in the barratry." It asks for that penalty for each member of the proposed Texas Barratry Subclass against each defendant found to have engaged in barratry, on top of $500 per call under the TCPA, trebled to $1,500 for willful and knowing violations. To reach federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, the complaint pleads that more than $5 million is in controversy.

Analysis: Mass-tort inventories that reach corporate defendants are built at intake. This complaint puts an AI voice at that first step, on the record, and asks a court to price it per class member. Separately, EvenUp, an AI company serving personal injury firms, said in an October 2025 announcement that case volume on its platform had "nearly doubled to 10,000 cases per week." The Sentinel has followed the economics of that shift through Morgan & Morgan's AI case math.

As of the docket's September 3 update, no defense response appears, and the public record holds only the plaintiff's account of the call. The firms can answer, move to dismiss, or challenge the proposed classes, whose definitions turn on consent, a four-year window and, for the barratry claim, a Texas location. The bill the plaintiff wants a court to write is $50,000 per qualifying Texas class member, per firm found to have engaged in barratry.