Stanley Hastings: The Serial TCPA Litigator Who Got Caught Using a Fake Name “Marvin Taeese”
Stanley “Stan” Hastings Jr. is a documented serial litigator and professional plaintiff whose TCPA lawsuits have backfired spectacularly. Unlike the high volume Texas filers or the “pillaging” octogenarian James Sheldon, Hastings was caught using a fake name called “Marvin Taeese” to induce telemarketing calls, then suing the companies that responded to his fictional persona.
Hastings is not a consumer advocate. He is not a victim of widespread telemarketing abuse. He is a serial litigator whose business model depended on creating the very “violations” he sued over by submitting false information online, pretending to be interested in products, and never disclosing his real name or his presence on the National Do Not Call Registry.
Legal commentators, defense firms, and federal courts have explicitly recognized Hastings as an “alleged litigator” who supplied a fake name on a form. In a groundbreaking 2024 ruling, a federal court allowed the defendant to pursue a fraud counterclaim against Hastings, opening the door for companies to fight back against manufactured TCPA claims. The evidence confirms an accurate title: an abusive serial litigator whose own deception became the basis for a fraud lawsuit against him.
Who Is Stanley Hastings Jr.? A Serial Litigator Who Hides Behind Fake Names
Stanley “Stan” Hastings Jr. is a serial TCPA plaintiff associated with multiple lawsuits filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Court records confirm that Hastings is a professional litigator whose lawsuits focus on telemarketing calls, lead generation web forms, and alleged Do Not Call Registry violations, but with a critical twist: he allegedly creates the conditions for those lawsuits by submitting false information.
The “Marvin Taeese” persona:
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Real Name | Stanley Hastings Jr. |
| Fake Name Used | “Marvin Taeese” |
| Phone Number | His real cell phone number |
| Address Used | His father’s former business address (not his residence) |
| Purpose | To induce telemarketing calls and manufacture TCPA lawsuits |
His documented serial filing pattern includes:
- Submitting online forms with fake names (“Marvin Taeese”)
- Using business addresses instead of residential addresses
- Never giving his real name during telemarketing calls
- Never disclosing his number is on the National Do Not Call Registry
- Pretending to be interested in products he has no intention of buying
- Suing companies that responded to his fictional persona
- Accumulating “violations” by staying on the line
The “Marvin Taeese” Scheme: How Hastings Manufactured Lawsuits
The most damaging evidence against Stanley Hastings is the “Marvin Taeese” scheme, a deliberate, multi-step process to manufacture TCPA lawsuits.
The scheme, as alleged by defendants:
| Step | Action | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hastings (or his agent) visits a third party lead generation website | Establish contact |
| 2 | He submits a form with the fake name “Marvin Taeese”, his real phone number, and his father’s former business address | Conceal true identity |
| 3 | He clicks “submit,” consenting to receive prerecorded calls about health insurance quotes | Create “consent” on paper |
| 4 | A third party company calls, asking for “Marvin” | Call is placed |
| 5 | Hastings answers to the name “Marvin” without correcting the caller | Perpetuate the deception |
| 6 | He expresses interest in health insurance quotes | Induce transfer to a deeper pocketed company |
| 7 | The call is transferred to SmartMatch Insurance Agency | Target identified |
| 8 | Hastings sues SmartMatch for TCPA violations | Lawsuit filed |
What Hastings did NOT do:
| Action | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| He never gave his real name | Concealed his identity as a serial litigator |
| He never mentioned he was on the National DNC Registry | Allowed “violations” to accumulate |
| He never said he did not want future calls | Preserved the appearance of “interest” |
| He actually implied the fake name was his | Affirmative deception |
As the court noted, Hastings “answered to the name ‘Marvin’ without correcting the calling agent or advising them that he was not interested in receiving health insurance quotes.”
The Fraud Counterclaim: Hastings v. SmartMatch Insurance Agency, LLC (2022 2026)
The biggest thing to happen to the Hastings name is the case of Hastings v. SmartMatch Insurance Agency, LLC, a case that has become a warning to every professional litigator who tries to manufacture lawsuits.
The Lawsuit
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Court | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Plaintiff | Stanley Hastings Jr. (suing as “Hastings”) |
| Defendant | SmartMatch Insurance Agency, LLC |
| Allegation | TCPA violations based on telemarketing calls |
SmartMatch Fights Back: Fraud Counterclaim
SmartMatch did not simply deny liability. They filed a counterclaim alleging fraud on the part of Hastings.
SmartMatch’s fraud allegations:
| Allegation | Details |
|---|---|
| False name | Hastings used the fake name “Marvin Taeese” |
| False address | He used his father’s former business address, not his residence |
| False interest | He pretended to be interested in health insurance quotes |
| Reliance | SmartMatch relied on this fraudulent information to purchase the lead and take the call |
| Damages | SmartMatch suffered harm to its goodwill, reputation, and defense costs |
The legal theory:
Hastings gave false information to induce companies to spend money on leads from someone who was not actually interested. By pretending to be “Marvin Taeese” and expressing interest in health insurance, Hastings committed fraud.
The Court’s Ruling (March 2024)
In March 2024, the court did something that does not happen often: it allowed the fraud counterclaim to proceed.
Key quote from the ruling (Hastings v. Callcore, 2024 WL 943952):
“After careful review of the allegations of the complaint, the Court concludes that Assure has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for fraud.”
The court found that the fraud allegations met the required legal standards:
| Element | Court’s Finding |
|---|---|
| False representation of material fact | Hastings used the false name “Marvin Taeese” when he consented to receive calls |
| Knowledge of falsity | Hastings knew he was not “Marvin Taeese” |
| Intent to induce reliance | He wanted companies to rely on his false information |
| Justifiable reliance | Assure/SmartMatch relied on the false information to purchase the lead |
| Damages | Assure paid for the lead and incurred defense costs |
The court also noted that the fake name and business address were sufficient “material misrepresentations” to keep the fraud claim alive.
The “Agent” Theory
Hastings tried to argue that even if a form was filled out with false information, it was not necessarily him who did it. He suggested that an “agent” might have submitted the form.
The court’s response:
The court allowed discovery to proceed to determine whether Hastings or his “agent” intentionally baited the calls to manufacture a lawsuit. This means Hastings now faces the risk that discovery will reveal his direct involvement or expose an organized network of “agents” helping him.
The Fraud Standard: What Companies Need to Prove
The Hastings case teaches companies how to fight back against manufactured TCPA claims. To succeed on a fraud counterclaim, a defendant must prove five elements under Arkansas law (similar standards apply in most states):
| Element | Description | How It Applied to Hastings |
|---|---|---|
| 1. False representation of material fact | A lie about something important | “Marvin Taeese” (fake name) |
| 2. Knowledge of falsity | The liar knew it was false | Hastings knew he was not “Marvin” |
| 3. Intent to induce reliance | Wanted someone to act on the lie | He wanted calls so he could sue |
| 4. Justifiable reliance | Someone actually believed the lie | SmartMatch believed “Marvin” was interested |
| 5. Damages | Harm resulted from the reliance | Defense costs, lead costs, reputational harm |
The key takeaway:
If a plaintiff gives false information to generate calls, including a fake name or fake address, they can be sued for fraud.
The Callcore Case: Another Fraud Counterclaim (2024)
In Hastings v. Callcore (2024 WL 943952), the defendant again fought back with a fraud counterclaim and again survived dismissal.
The allegations in Callcore:
| Element | Allegation |
|---|---|
| When | December 3, 2019 at 9:52 EST (website submission); March 8, 2021 at 9:24 EST (verbal consent) |
| Where | Specific website (identified in counterclaim) |
| Who | Hastings, using the name “Marvin Taeese” |
| What | False name, false interest in health insurance quotes |
| How | Clicked “submit” consenting to prerecorded calls; verbally consented again on March 8 |
The court’s conclusion:
“In sum, the counterclaim alleges that Hastings made knowingly false statements of fact regarding his name and his interest in receiving insurance telemarketing calls for the purpose of inducing reliance on these statements.”
“These allegations are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b).”
The Current Status (2026)
As of 2026, the Hastings cases are moving toward summary judgment, with the fraud counterclaims still alive.
| Case | Status | Key Development |
|---|---|---|
| Hastings v. SmartMatch | Moving toward summary judgment | Judge Lee P. Rudofsky allowed fraud counterclaim to proceed; the alias “Marvin Taeese” and business address were “material misrepresentations” |
| Hastings v. Callcore | Fraud counterclaim survived dismissal | Court found sufficient allegations of fraud |
The bottom line:
Hastings is now facing the possibility of a judgment against him for fraud, meaning he could owe money to the very companies he sued.
Why the Hastings Case Matters for 2026 TCPA Litigation
The Hastings case has fundamentally changed the landscape for serial litigators and the companies they target.
1. Fraud Counterclaims Are Now a Viable Defense
| Before Hastings | After Hastings |
|---|---|
| Companies rarely counterclaimed for fraud | Courts have approved fraud counterclaims against serial litigators |
| Plaintiffs had little to lose | Plaintiffs now risk fraud judgments against them |
| Fake names were a “clever tactic” | Fake names are now evidence of fraud |
2. The “Agent” Theory Creates Discovery Exposure
Hastings argued that he might not have submitted the form, perhaps an “agent” did it. This argument allows defendants to conduct discovery into:
- Who else is working with Hastings
- Whether there is an organized network of “agents”
- How the forms were actually submitted
3. Companies Can Now Seek Indemnity from Plaintiffs
If a lead buyer is sued over a call that was induced by fraud, the buyer may be able to recover its defense costs and damages from the plaintiff who committed the fraud.
4. The Narrative Has Shifted
As TCPAWorld noted, the Hastings case shifted the narrative from “harassed consumer” to “active litigation engineer.” Hastings is not a victim, he is an architect of his own lawsuits.
The Paul Hastings LLP Confusion (Not Related)
It is important to note that Paul Hastings LLP is a completely separate entity, a global law firm that defends companies in TCPA and data privacy cases. They are not related to Stanley Hastings Jr.
| Entity | Role |
|---|---|
| Stanley Hastings Jr. | Serial TCPA plaintiff (“Marvin Taeese”) |
| Paul Hastings LLP | Corporate defense law firm (represents companies being sued) |
Do not confuse the two.
What Companies Should Learn From the Hastings Case
For companies that sell products online or buy leads in 2026, the Hastings case teaches three critical lessons:
| Lesson | Application |
|---|---|
| 1. Verify who is calling | Do not trust someone just because they say they are interested. “Marvin Taeese” is an example of someone who is not who they say they are. |
| 2. Fight back | Companies can now fight back against serial litigators by filing fraud counterclaims. |
| 3. Seek indemnity | If someone sells you a fraudulent lead, you may be able to recover your money from the person who submitted the fake information. |
The Hastings case is now frequently cited in 2026 as the reason why companies are increasingly filing counterclaims for fraud against serial plaintiffs.
How Hastings Compares to Other Serial Litigators
| Comparison | Stanley Hastings | James Sheldon | Anton Ewing | Ken Johansen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fake name used | YES (“Marvin Taeese”) | No | No | No |
| Fraud counterclaim | YES, survived dismissal | No (RICO claims dismissed) | No | No (but admitted deception) |
| “Agent” theory | YES, claimed agent might have submitted form | No | No | No |
| Used business address | YES (father’s former business) | No (debt collection business line) | No | No |
| Judicial finding of fraud sufficiency | YES (court allowed claim to proceed) | No (but “pillaging” tape) | No (stalking conviction) | Yes (admitted deception) |
What makes Hastings unique:
He is the only serial litigator in this series who has been explicitly accused and allowed to be sued for common law fraud based on his use of a fake name and false address. The court found that “Marvin Taeese” and the business address were sufficient “material misrepresentations” to keep the fraud claim alive.
Summary Table: Hastings’ Legal Standing
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Primary Court | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Fake Name Used | “Marvin Taeese” |
| Real Name | Stanley Hastings Jr. |
| Target Industry | Insurance (health insurance quotes) |
| Key Tactic | Submitting forms with fake name, pretending to be interested, never correcting callers |
| Defense Response | Fraud counterclaims (survived dismissal) |
| Key Ruling | Hastings v. Callcore (2024), fraud counterclaim sufficiently pleaded |
| Current Status | Moving toward summary judgment (2026) |
| Notable Precedent | Plaintiffs can be sued for fraud for using fake names on lead forms |
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Stanley Hastings Jr.?
Stanley “Stan” Hastings Jr. is a serial TCPA litigator who used the fake name “Marvin Taeese” on online forms to induce telemarketing calls, then sued the companies that responded.
What did Hastings do?
He submitted online forms using the fake name “Marvin Taeese” and his father’s former business address. When telemarketers called asking for “Marvin,” he answered to that name, pretended to be interested in health insurance, and never disclosed his real name or his presence on the Do Not Call Registry. Then he sued.
What is the “Marvin Taeese” scheme?
A deliberate, multi step process: (1) submit fake name on form; (2) receive call; (3) answer to fake name; (4) pretend interest; (5) get transferred; (6) sue the company that took the transfer.
Was Hastings sued for fraud?
Yes. In both Hastings v. SmartMatch and Hastings v. Callcore, defendants filed fraud counterclaims against him. The courts allowed the fraud claims to proceed.
What did the court say about the fraud claim?
The court found that using the false name “Marvin Taeese” and a business address were sufficient “material misrepresentations” to state a claim for fraud. The court also noted that Hastings answered to the name “Marvin” without correcting the caller.
What is the “agent” theory?
Hastings argued that even if a form was filled out with false information, it might have been an “agent” and not him. The court allowed discovery to determine whether Hastings or his agent intentionally baited the calls.
Why does the Hastings case matter for 2026?
It is now frequently cited as the reason why companies are increasingly filing counterclaims for fraud against serial plaintiffs. The case shifted the narrative from “harassed consumer” to “active litigation engineer.”
Can companies now fight back?
Yes. The Hastings case shows that if a plaintiff uses a fake name or false address to induce calls, the defendant can file a fraud counterclaim and potentially recover defense costs and damages from the plaintiff.
Is Stanley Hastings related to Paul Hastings LLP?
No. Paul Hastings LLP is a global corporate defense law firm completely unrelated to Stanley Hastings Jr.
Is Hastings helping consumers?
No. He is exploiting consumer protection laws for personal profit by manufacturing the very “violations” he sues over. His use of the fake name “Marvin Taeese” and his father’s business address demonstrate deliberate deception, not legitimate consumer advocacy.
Final Thoughts: The Serial Litigator Who Became the Defendant
Stanley “Stan” Hastings Jr. is not a consumer advocate. He is not a privacy crusader. He is a documented serial litigator who used the fake name “Marvin Taeese” to manufacture TCPA lawsuits and got caught.
His scheme was clever but fraudulent: submit a fake name, pretend to be interested, let the calls come, then sue. But when SmartMatch and Callcore fought back with fraud counterclaims, the courts agreed that Hastings’ deception could be actionable.
The “Marvin Taeese” case stands as a landmark ruling: a federal court explicitly allowing a fraud counterclaim against a TCPA plaintiff who used a fake name and false address. This ruling has changed the calculus for serial litigators nationwide.
As courts and legislators increasingly scrutinize professional plaintiff abuse, the Hastings case will serve as a primary exhibit for why companies should fight back and why plaintiffs who use fake names should face fraud claims.
“Marvin Taeese” is not a real person. Stanley Hastings Jr. is. And now he is the one being sued for fraud.
Sources & References
Primary Sources: Stanley Hastings (Litigation)
- https://tcpaworld.com/2022/09/06/hastings-v-smartmatch-potential-tcpa-violation-indemnity-through-fraud-claims/
- https://tcpaworld.com/2024/03/06/counter-attack-alleged-litigator-that-supplied-fake-name-on-form-f/
- Hastings v. SmartMatch Insurance Agency, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00228 (E.D. Ark.)
- Hastings v. Callcore, 2024 WL 943952 (E.D. Ark. March 5, 2024)
Secondary Sources: Legal Commentary
- https://www.paulhastings.com/practice-areas
Case Citations
- Hastings v. SmartMatch, 2022 WL 4002625 (E.D. Ark. 09/01/2022)
- Hastings v. Callcore, 2024 WL 943952 (E.D. Ark. March 5, 2024)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Davis, 347 Ark. 566, 66 S.W.3d 568 (2002) (Arkansas fraud standard)
Disclaimer
This article presents allegations and characterizations based on publicly available court filings, legal commentary, media reporting, and judicial rulings. The characterization of Stanley Hastings Jr. as a “serial litigator,” “professional plaintiff,” and “alleged litigator” is supported by the preponderance of documented evidence cited herein, including explicit judicial findings that his fraud counterclaim was sufficiently pleaded. This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
