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 filed suit against QuoteWizard.com, LLC the same company that paid $5 million to settle the Mantha case and later $19 million to resolve related claims. Unlike the serial litigators profiled 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 a fake-name user or a convicted stalker. He is a consumer who allegedly received unwanted prerecorded calls and text messages from QuoteWizard despite his number being on the National Do Not Call Registry.
The case, 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 at the beginning of 2024. Grochowski seeks to represent a class of consumers who received similar unlawful communications. The case is closely linked to the landmark Mantha v. QuoteWizard litigation, and many of the core legal arguments Grochowski used regarding “bad leads” have been validated by the outcome of that parallel litigation.
Legal commentators, defense firms, and consumer advocates have followed Grochowski v. QuoteWizard because it demonstrates that lead-generation companies cannot simply settle one case and assume they are safe; they must ensure compliance across all their marketing practices. The case also highlights a critical trend where plaintiffs are successfully bypassing technical arguments about dialing hardware by focusing on the National Do Not Call Registry and the use of prerecorded voices, both of which offer a clearer path to victory in modern TCPA litigation.
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, Grochowski does not have a history of dozens of lawsuits or questionable litigation tactics.
What we know about Grochowski:
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Full Name | Alan Grochowski, Sr. |
| Location | Florida (Southern District of Florida) |
| Role | Proposed class representative |
| Number of TCPA cases | 1 major case (QuoteWizard) |
| Legal training | None known |
| Manufactured claims | No alleged genuine unwanted calls |
The key distinction from serial litigators:
| Comparison | Alan Grochowski, Sr. | Serial Litigators (Dobronski, Callier, Ewing, Sheldon, Hastings) |
|---|---|---|
| Number of TCPA cases | 1 major case | 15-60+ cases |
| High-volume filing | No | Yes |
| Fake names used | No | Yes (Hastings used “Marvin Taeese”) |
| Manufactured claims | No | Yes |
| Criminal history | None | Some have stalking convictions (Ewing) |
| Judicial warnings | None | Multiple |
| Fraud counterclaims | None | Yes (Hastings) |
What this reveals: Alan Grochowski, Sr. is an ordinary consumer a Florida resident who received unwanted prerecorded calls and text messages and decided to take legal action. He is not running a litigation enterprise. He is not filing dozens of lawsuits. He is, by all appearances, a legitimate plaintiff with a genuine 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 find customers alleging violations of the TCPA. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:24-cv-80379).
Case Overview
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Court | U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida |
| Filing Date | Early 2024 |
| Plaintiff | Alan Grochowski, Sr. |
| Defendant | QuoteWizard.com, LLC |
| Key Issues | National Do Not Call Registry violations, prerecorded call violations |
| Status | Active (Florida plaintiff’s claims allowed to proceed) |
The Allegations
The Grochowski lawsuit focuses on two main TCPA violations:
| Violation | Details |
|---|---|
| National Do Not Call Registry (DNCR) | Grochowski alleges that QuoteWizard called people whose numbers were on the DNCR. This is not allowed unless the person gave prior express written consent. |
| Prerecorded messages | QuoteWizard used prerecorded voices to send marketing messages. If QuoteWizard did not obtain written consent, this is a violation. |
The “Drips” platform focus: Grochowski’s pattern involves a deep technical focus on the “Drips” platform, a conversational SMS tool. He argues that even if it looks like a “chat,” it is an automated system governed by the TCPA if the consent was not “express and written.”
The Proposed Classes
Grochowski seeks to certify two classes:
| Class | Definition |
|---|---|
| Robocall Class | 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 |
| National Do Not Call Registry Class | All persons whose residential telephone numbers were on the DNCR for at least 31 days but received more than one telephone solicitation call, text message, or combination thereof from QuoteWizard within a 12-month period |
The Jurisdictional Ruling: Florida Plaintiffs Only
In a significant early ruling, the court dismissed non-Florida plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction but allowed the Florida plaintiff’s claims to proceed.
| Ruling | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Non-Florida plaintiffs | Dismissed (lack of personal jurisdiction) |
| Florida plaintiff (Grochowski) | Claims allowed to proceed |
Why this matters: This ruling demonstrates the importance of jurisdiction in TCPA class actions. QuoteWizard successfully argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over claims from plaintiffs outside Florida. However, Grochowski’s Florida-based claims survived.
The Connection to the Mantha Litigation
The Grochowski case is closely linked to the Mantha v. QuoteWizard litigated the landmark case in which Joseph Mantha rejected a $100,000 personal settlement to protect the class, leading to a $5 million settlement.
How the cases are connected:
| Connection | Details |
|---|---|
| Same defendant | Both cases target QuoteWizard.com, LLC |
| Similar allegations | Both involve unlawful telemarketing communications |
| Lead-gen issues | Both challenge QuoteWizard’s practice of purchasing leads from third parties |
| Consent disclosures | Both argue that QuoteWizard’s consent disclosures were inadequate |
The “Mantha Intersection” (2025): Though a different lead plaintiff, the Mantha settlement finalized in September 2025 effectively resolved the “text message” portion of the claims Grochowski was fighting. QuoteWizard paid $19 million to resolve claims involving unsolicited texts sent to DNC-registered numbers.
As of early 2026: Many of the core legal arguments Grochowski used regarding “bad leads” have been validated by the outcome of the Mantha litigation. The Mantha settlement confirmed that QuoteWizard’s lead-generation practices were legally deficient.
The “Lead-Gen Meltdown”: QuoteWizard’s Growing Liability
In 2025, Grochowski’s background was cited in reports regarding “lead-gen meltdowns.” His case revealed that QuoteWizard had purchased leads that allegedly lacked proper consent disclosures, a technical failure that has cost the company tens of millions of dollars across multiple dockets.
QuoteWizard’s liability timeline:
| Case | Outcome | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Mantha v. QuoteWizard | Settlement (text messages) | $5,000,000 |
| Related DNCR/text claims | Settlement | $19,000,000 |
| Grochowski v. QuoteWizard | Ongoing (prerecorded calls, DNCR) | Potential additional millions |
The bottom line: QuoteWizard’s lead-generation practices have cost the company tens of millions of dollars and the Grochowski case could add to that total.
The “Lead Gen” Defense Under Scrutiny
The Grochowski case like Mantha before it scrutinizes how QuoteWizard obtains consumer data.
QuoteWizard’s defense: QuoteWizard often buys consumer information from third-party websites. They argue that they relied on the consent obtained by those websites.
Grochowski’s position: He never gave QuoteWizard permission to call him. The fact that QuoteWizard purchased his information from a third party does not create valid consent.
The court’s likely view (based on Mantha): This case shows that companies like QuoteWizard are responsible for making sure they have the right to call people. If the company that sold them the leads did something wrong, QuoteWizard could still be in trouble. “I bought the lead” is not a defense.
Legal Stakes and Financial Implications
Grochowski wants to represent a group of people who received calls like he did. If he wins, QuoteWizard would face significant financial exposure.
| Damages | Amount |
|---|---|
| Standard TCPA violation | $500 per call/text |
| Willful violation | Up to $1,500 per call/text |
| Class-wide exposure | Potential millions of dollars |
Why this case matters: Even after settling the Mantha case for $5 million and related claims for $19 million, QuoteWizard remains exposed. The Grochowski case focuses on prerecorded calls and DNCR violations claims that were not fully resolved by the Mantha settlement (which focused primarily on text messages).
As TCPAWorld noted: “This case is important because it shows that companies like QuoteWizard cannot just settle one case and think they are safe. They have to make sure they are doing things right all the time.”
The “Drips” Platform: Technical Focus
Grochowski’s case involves a deep technical focus on the “Drips” platform a conversational SMS tool used by QuoteWizard.
The argument: Even if the communication looks like a “chat” (back-and-forth conversation), it is still an automated system governed by the TCPA if the consent was not “express and written.”
Why this matters: Companies often argue that conversational SMS tools are not “autodialers” under the TCPA. Grochowski’s case challenges that distinction, arguing that the content and nature of the communication matter more than the underlying technology.
What the Grochowski Case Means for Digital Marketing
The Grochowski v. QuoteWizard case provides critical lessons for any company that uses lead generation or purchased leads:
| Lesson | Application |
|---|---|
| 1. Verify consent | Make sure you have the right to call people. Check where the leads came from and make sure the people knew they were signing up for calls. |
| 2. Respect the DNCR | Do not just trust that a lead provider has cleaned the list against the National Do Not Call Registry. Verify it yourself. |
| 3. Be transparent about data handling | Do not use tricks to get people to sign up for things they do not want. This is important for building trust with customers and avoiding lawsuits. |
| 4. One settlement is not enough | Settling one case does not immunize you from future claims. Ensure ongoing compliance across all marketing channels. |
| 5. Prerecorded calls require written consent | The TCPA requires prior express written consent for prerecorded telemarketing calls not just implied consent or third-party consent. |
How Grochowski Compares to Other Plaintiffs in This Series
| Comparison | Alan Grochowski, Sr. | Joseph Mantha | Serial Litigators (Ewing, Sheldon, Hastings) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of TCPA cases | 1 | 1 | 15-60+ |
| High-volume filing | No | No | Yes |
| Fake names used | No | No | Yes |
| Manufactured claims | No | No | Yes |
| Criminal history | None | None | Some have stalking convictions |
| Judicial warnings | None | None | Multiple |
| Rejected personal settlement | N/A | YES ($100,000) | No |
| Case outcome | Ongoing | $5M settlement | Varies |
What makes Grochowski similar to Mantha: Both are legitimate consumers who received unwanted communications from QuoteWizard. Both filed class actions to protect others. Neither is a serial litigator.
What makes Grochowski different from Mantha: Grochowski’s case focuses on prerecorded calls and DNCR violations , while Mantha focused primarily on text messages. The Grochowski case represents the next wave of litigation against QuoteWizard.
The Broader Trend: DNCR and Prerecorded Calls as a Clearer Path to Victory
The Grochowski case highlights a critical trend in TCPA litigation:
| Old Strategy | New Strategy |
|---|---|
| Focus on ATDS (autodialer) technicalities | Focus on National Do Not Call Registry violations |
| Argue about whether a system is an “autodialer” | Argue that the consumer’s number was on the DNCR |
| Need expert testimony on dialing technology | DNCR status is a simple factual question |
| Subject to Facebook v. Duguid narrowing | DNCR claims unaffected by Duguid |
Why this matters: Plaintiffs are successfully bypassing technical arguments about dialing hardware by focusing on the National Do Not Call Registry and the use of prerecorded voices — both of which offer a clearer path to victory in modern TCPA litigation. The Grochowski case exemplifies this strategy.
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 National Do Not Call Registry violations.
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 is a legitimate consumer plaintiff.
What happened in Grochowski v. QuoteWizard?
Grochowski alleges that QuoteWizard called him using prerecorded messages and called his number despite it being on the National Do Not Call Registry. He seeks to represent a class of similarly situated consumers.
What was the jurisdictional ruling?
The court dismissed non-Florida plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction but allowed the Florida plaintiff’s (Grochowski’s) claims to proceed.
How is Grochowski connected to the Mantha case?
Both cases target QuoteWizard for similar lead-generation and consent failures. The Mantha settlement (which grew to $19 million for related claims) validated many of the legal arguments Grochowski is making.
What is the “Drips” platform?
Drips is a conversational SMS tool. Grochowski argues that even if communications look like a “chat,” they are still automated systems governed by the TCPA if consent was not “express and written.”
What is the “lead-gen meltdown”?
QuoteWizard’s practice of purchasing leads from third parties without proper consent disclosures has cost the company tens of millions of dollars across multiple lawsuits including Mantha ($5M + $19M) and the ongoing Grochowski case.
What damages is Grochowski seeking?
Statutory damages of $500-$1,500 per violation, plus injunctive relief to stop QuoteWizard’s unlawful practices.
What is the current status of the case (2026)?
The Florida plaintiff’s claims are proceeding. Non-Florida claims 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 alleged unlawful telemarketing practices. His case, if successful, 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, a fake-name user, or a high-volume filing machine. He is a Florida consumer who allegedly received unwanted prerecorded calls and text messages from QuoteWizard and he decided to fight back.
His case against QuoteWizard is part of a larger wave of litigation targeting the company’s lead-generation practices. The Mantha case established that purchased leads do not constitute valid consent. The Grochowski case extends that principle to prerecorded calls and DNCR violations.
The contrast with the serial litigators profiled elsewhere in this series could not be starker:
| Serial Litigators (Ewing, Sheldon, Hastings, etc.) | Alan Grochowski, Sr. |
|---|---|
| File 15-60+ lawsuits | Filed 1 lawsuit |
| Use fake names (“Marvin Taeese”) | Uses his real name |
| Prolong calls to manufacture damages | Received genuine unwanted calls |
| Have criminal records (stalking) | No criminal history |
| Receive judicial warnings | No warnings |
| Face fraud counterclaims | No counterclaims |
| Litigate for personal profit | Seeks class relief |
As courts and legislators increasingly scrutinize professional plaintiff abuse , legitimate consumer plaintiffs like Alan Grochowski, Sr. should not be confused with the serial litigators who exploit the TCPA for profit. His case is a reminder that the TCPA serves an important purpose protecting real consumers from unwanted prerecorded calls and DNCR violations.
Alan Grochowski, Sr. received unwanted prerecorded calls. His number was on the Do Not Call Registry. He never consented. 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 + $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.
