Cindy Carroll: The TCPA Plaintiff Taking on Sunflora’s CBD Robocall Machine

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 (Dobronski, Callier, Salaiz, Ewing, 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:

Field	Details
Full Name	Cindy Carroll (Cynthia Carroll)
Location	Florida (Middle District of Florida)
Role	Proposed class representative
Number of TCPA cases	1 major case (Sunflora)
Legal training	None known
Manufactured claims	No. alleges genuine unwanted calls

The key distinction from serial litigators:

Comparison	Cindy Carroll	Serial Litigators (Dobronski, Callier, Ewing, Sheldon)
Number of TCPA cases	1 major case	15 to 60+ cases
Filing pattern	Single, targeted lawsuit	High volume, multi jurisdictional
Manufactured claims	No. genuine unwanted calls	Yes. fake names, prolonged calls, deception
Fake names used	No	Yes (Hastings used “Marvin Taeese”)
Criminal history	None	Some have stalking convictions (Ewing)
Judicial warnings	None	Multiple (Ewing, Sheldon, Perrong pre bar)
Fraud counterclaims	None	Yes (Hastings faces fraud claims)

What this reveals: 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. She is, by all appearances, 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

Field	Details
Court	U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
Filing Date	August 2024
Plaintiff	Cindy Carroll (Cynthia Carroll)
Defendant	Sunflora, Inc. (Your CBD Store)
Key Issue	Unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls promoting CBD products
Statutes	TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227) + Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA)

The Allegations

According to the complaint, Carroll received unsolicited calls from Sunflora featuring a prerecorded voice promoting CBD products and discounts. The key allegations:

Allegation	Details
No consent	Carroll never agreed to receive such calls
Prerecorded voice	The calls used an artificial or prerecorded voice without a live human
Irresistible offer	The calls promoted CBD discounts to induce engagement
Franchise marketing	Calls allegedly originated from or were authorized by Sunflora’s franchise network

The “mechanical” nature of the calls: 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 being and the immediate playback of a script as her primary evidence.

The Legal Claims

Carroll’s lawsuit includes claims under two statutes:

Statute	Key Provision	Damages
TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227)	Prohibits prerecorded telemarketing calls without prior express written consent	$500 to $1,500 per violation
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA)	Florida’s state level robocall protection law	State penalties

The treble damages strategy: Unlike earlier filings, Carroll’s 2026 strategy explicitly pursues treble damages ($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 is significant for several reasons 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 dive 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.

Legal Question	Carroll’s Position
Is Sunflora responsible for its franchisees’ calls?	Yes. the parent company controls marketing
Did Sunflora have direct knowledge of the campaign?	Yes. the calls promoted specific storefronts
Did Sunflora have control over the marketing?	Yes. corporate wide CBD promotion

The problem for CBD stores: They usually only get your information when you sign up or buy something. The big question is whether Sunflora’s terms of service and privacy policy are enough to be considered 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.”

Problem	Details
No “STOP” button	Customers must email a specific address to opt out
Cumbersome process	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’s not just poor design. It’s 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. It’s the legal equivalent of a handshake agreement with crossed fingers behind your back.”

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 (FTSA): A State Level TCPA

Carroll’s lawsuit includes claims under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA). Florida’s state level equivalent of the TCPA.

Feature	TCPA (Federal)	FTSA (Florida)
Prerecorded calls	Prohibited without consent	Prohibited without consent
Private right of action	Yes	Yes
Statutory damages	$500 to $1,500 per violation	State penalties
Class actions	Yes	Yes

Why the FTSA matters: Even if the TCPA claims face hurdles (e.g., 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. The Complaint demands injunctive relief to stop Sunflora from continuing its alleged unsolicited robocall spree.

Remedy Sought	Purpose
Damages	Compensate for past violations ($500 to $1,500 per call)
Injunctive relief	Force Sunflora to change its marketing practices
Class certification	Allow all similarly situated consumers to recover

The potential liability: If a class is certified, Sunflora’s potential liability could reach “eye watering sums”. millions of dollars in statutory damages.

 

The Current Status (2026)

As of 2026, the case is progressing through litigation.

Status	Details
Filing date	August 2024
Current phase	Active litigation
Key battlegrounds	Class certification, arbitration clauses, vicarious liability
Dismissed claims	Some parts of the lawsuit were dropped
Core claims	The main TCPA/FTSA claims are still being litigated

What remains: The core of the case. Sunflora’s alleged use of prerecorded robocalls without consent. is still being evaluated by the court. As the National Law Review noted, “the main problem with Sunflora’s marketing is still being looked at by experts who care about TCPA rules.”

How Carroll Compares to Other Plaintiffs in This Series

Comparison	Cindy Carroll	Serial Litigators (Dobronski, Callier, Ewing, Sheldon, Hastings)
Number of TCPA cases	1	15 to 60+
High volume filing	No	Yes
Fake names used	No	Yes (Hastings used “Marvin Taeese”)
Manufactured claims	No	Yes (prolonged calls, fake interest)
Fraud counterclaims	None	Yes (Hastings faces fraud claims)
Criminal history	None	Some have stalking convictions (Ewing)
Judicial warnings	None	Multiple (Ewing, Sheldon, Perrong pre bar)
Property owned	Unknown	Multiple properties, luxury homes
Legal training	None	Some are paralegals or attorneys

What makes Carroll different: She 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. She is not a professional litigator. She is not filing dozens of cases. She is not using fake names or deceptive tactics.

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.

Lesson	Application
1. Get clear consent	You must be very clear when asking for permission to call or text. You cannot just assume someone wants calls because they bought something from you.
2. Make opt out easy	You have to make it easy for people to stop getting calls or texts. If it is hard, it could be a problem. Email only opt out is likely insufficient.
3. Review privacy policies	Your privacy policy has to be clear and honest. You cannot just try to hide things in the fine print. Disclaimers like “no right of action” may backfire.
4. Corporate parents may be liable	Vicarious liability for franchise marketing practices is a real risk. If your franchisees make illegal calls, you may be sued as the corporate parent.
5. Arbitration clauses are not guarantees	Courts are increasingly skeptical of class action waivers and arbitration clauses buried in fine print.

The Eric Carroll Confusion (Not Related)

It is important to note that there is another case involving a different “Carroll”. Eric Carroll. who filed Carroll v. Staples, Inc. in March 2026 in the Massachusetts District Court.

Entity	Role
Cindy Carroll	TCPA plaintiff against Sunflora (Your CBD Store)
Eric Carroll	Plaintiff in data breach/privacy action against Staples

These are different plaintiffs with the same last name. Do not confuse them.

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 litigator.

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 (FTSA).

What is the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA)?
Florida’s state level robocall protection law. It provides an independent basis for liability even if TCPA claims face hurdles.

What damages is Carroll seeking?
She is seeking treble damages ($1,500 per call instead of $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. no “STOP” button, no easy unsubscribe. Courts are becoming more critical of these cumbersome barriers.

What did Sunflora’s privacy policy say?
It included a 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.

Is Sunflora liable for its franchisees’ calls?
That is the key legal question in the case. Carroll is attempting to prove that Sunflora (the parent company) is vicariously liable for the robocalling practices of its local franchise stores.

What is the current status of the case (2026)?
The case is in active litigation. Some parts have been dismissed, but the core TCPA/FTSA claims are still proceeding. Class certification and arbitration clauses remain 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 she decided to fight back.

Her case against Sunflora (Your CBD Store) 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 starker:

Serial Litigators (Ewing, Sheldon, Hastings, etc.)	Cindy Carroll
File 15 to 60+ lawsuits	Filed 1 lawsuit
Use fake names (“Marvin Taeese”)	Uses her real name
Prolong calls to manufacture damages	Genuinely received unwanted calls
Have criminal records (stalking)	No criminal history
Receive judicial warnings	No warnings
Face fraud counterclaims	No counterclaims
Own luxury homes and aircraft	Unknown. likely ordinary consumer

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. Her case is a reminder that the TCPA serves an important purpose. protecting real consumers from unwanted robocalls.

Cindy Carroll received unwanted prerecorded calls. She never consented. She sued. That is exactly how the TCPA is supposed to work.

Sources & References

Primary Sources. Cindy Carroll (Litigation)

• https://natlawreview.com/article/sunfloras-cbd-robocall-fiasco-privacy-promises-or-just-blowing-smoke (“SUNFLORA’S CBD ROBOCALL FIASCO: Privacy Promises or Just Blowing Smoke?” National Law Review, August 29, 2024)
• 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/privacy action

Dockets (Limited Access)

• https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flmdce/8:2024cv02047/431640 (Justia docket. content inaccessible)

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.