A Pennsylvania homeowner has filed a class action lawsuit against Mortgage One Funding LLC, a Michigan-based lender, alleging the company used artificial intelligence-generated voice calls to pitch mortgage refinancing services without consent. The case, Landy v. Mortgage One Funding LLC (Case No. 2:2026cv10643), was filed on February 24, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Plaintiff Brennan Landy claims he received an unsolicited call around January 23, 2026, featuring what he describes as an AI-generated voice with “awkward pauses, odd inflections, and stilted replies,” and that the caller never disclosed the use of artificial voice technology. The lawsuit targets a lender licensed to originate loans in 45 states, according to the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System, meaning the potential scope of affected consumers is enormous. The proposed class includes all persons in the United States who received similar AI-voice calls from Mortgage One or its agents over the four years preceding the filing, with aggregate damages alleged to exceed $5 million. Landy’s phone number had been registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since approximately May 2023, adding a second layer of alleged violation to the complaint. Mortgage One Funding has not yet publicly filed a response to the allegations, so the case remains in its earliest stages.
Table of Contents
- What Are the AI Marketing Call Allegations Against Michigan Lender Mortgage One Funding?
- How the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Applies to AI Robocalls
- What Damages Could Class Members Recover in the Mortgage One Funding Lawsuit?
- How to Check If You Received an AI Robocall From Mortgage One Funding
- The Growing Legal Risk of AI-Powered Telemarketing
- What Mortgage One Funding Has Said About the Allegations
- What This Case Means for AI Telemarketing Regulation Going Forward
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Are the AI Marketing Call Allegations Against Michigan Lender Mortgage One Funding?
The core of the complaint is straightforward: Landy says he received a phone call from Mortgage One Funding pitching mortgage refinancing, and the voice on the other end was not human. According to the lawsuit, the call exhibited telltale signs of AI-generated speech, including awkward pauses between sentences, odd inflections that did not match natural conversation patterns, and stilted replies when Landy responded. These characteristics are increasingly common as lenders and other businesses adopt AI calling agents to reduce the cost of outbound marketing campaigns. What makes the allegation particularly significant is the claimed failure to disclose. Federal law requires that when an artificial or prerecorded voice is used in a telemarketing call, the caller must identify the use of that technology at the start of the conversation.
Landy alleges no such disclosure was made. For consumers on the receiving end, this matters because it strips away the ability to make an informed decision about whether to stay on the line. Compare this to the familiar “this call may be recorded” disclosure — the same principle applies to AI voices, but many companies appear to be ignoring or unaware of the requirement. The lawsuit names at least two distinct TCPA violations: the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice without prior express written consent, and placing a telemarketing call to a number listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Each violation carries separate statutory penalties, which is why damages can accumulate quickly across a proposed class of potentially thousands of recipients.
How the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Applies to AI Robocalls
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act was enacted in 1991, long before AI-generated voices were a commercial reality, but its language is broad enough to cover modern technology. The statute requires prior express written consent before a telemarketer can place a call to a cellphone using an artificial or prerecorded voice. That consent must be documented — a verbal “sure, go ahead” does not meet the legal threshold. The law also established the National Do Not Call Registry, giving consumers the right to opt out of telemarketing calls entirely. However, there are situations where the TCPA does not apply or where its protections are narrower than consumers might expect.
Calls from political campaigns, charitable organizations, and certain survey companies are generally exempt. Informational calls — such as appointment reminders, fraud alerts, or flight notifications — may also fall outside the TCPA’s telemarketing restrictions, provided they are not selling anything. If Mortgage One Funding were to argue that the call to Landy was informational rather than a sales pitch, that could become a contested issue, though the complaint specifically alleges the call was marketing mortgage refinancing services. The TCPA has become one of the most actively litigated consumer protection statutes in the country, in part because it provides statutory damages without requiring proof of actual financial harm. A consumer does not need to show they lost money because of the call — the violation itself is enough. This makes it a powerful tool for class actions, where individual harm may be small but the aggregate impact across thousands of recipients is substantial.
What Damages Could Class Members Recover in the Mortgage One Funding Lawsuit?
The statutory framework under the TCPA provides for damages of $500 per violation. If a court finds the violations were willful and knowing — meaning the defendant was aware that its conduct violated the law and proceeded anyway — that figure triples to $1,500 per violation. In a case like this, where two separate violations are alleged per call (the AI voice and the Do Not Call Registry), a single recipient could theoretically recover $1,000 to $3,000 per call under the statute. For example, if the proposed class includes 5,000 people who each received one call, the minimum statutory damages at $500 per violation across two violations would total $5 million — which aligns with the aggregate damages threshold alleged in the complaint.
If the violations are found willful, that number climbs to $15 million. These are hypothetical figures based on the statutory formula, and actual outcomes depend on class certification, the number of verified class members, and the court’s findings on willfulness. It is worth noting that TCPA class actions frequently settle before trial. Settlements in similar cases have ranged from modest per-person payouts of $20 to $50 in large classes, to more substantial recoveries in smaller, well-documented cases. The ultimate value to any individual class member depends heavily on how many people join the class and whether the case resolves through settlement or a jury verdict.
How to Check If You Received an AI Robocall From Mortgage One Funding
If you received an unsolicited call about mortgage refinancing in the past four years and suspect it may have come from Mortgage One Funding or one of its agents, there are several steps you can take. First, check your phone records for calls from Michigan area codes (248, 313, 586, 734, 810, 947) or from numbers you do not recognize around the dates in question. AI-generated calls often originate from spoofed numbers, so the caller ID may not directly identify Mortgage One, but the records can still help establish a timeline. Second, verify your registration on the National Do Not Call Registry by visiting donotcall.gov. Your registration status and date are important if you want to establish that the caller should not have contacted you in the first place.
The tradeoff here is that registering on the Do Not Call list only protects against telemarketing calls — it does not block all unwanted calls, and some consumers mistakenly believe it provides blanket protection. Legitimate businesses are required to scrub their call lists against the registry every 31 days, but less scrupulous callers may ignore it. Third, if you stayed on the line long enough to hear the pitch, try to recall whether the caller disclosed the use of an artificial voice or automated system. The absence of that disclosure is central to the allegations in this case. If you have a call recording app on your phone, check whether you captured any portion of the conversation, as that could serve as valuable evidence.
The Growing Legal Risk of AI-Powered Telemarketing
This lawsuit reflects a broader trend in consumer litigation. As AI calling technology becomes cheaper and more convincing, companies across industries are deploying it for outbound marketing without fully understanding the legal requirements. The TCPA was written broadly enough to encompass artificial voices, but the practical challenge is that AI voices are getting harder to distinguish from real humans. A call that would have been obviously robotic in 2020 might sound nearly natural in 2026, making the disclosure requirement even more important — and the failure to disclose even more problematic. One limitation consumers should be aware of is that identifying the caller can be difficult.
AI marketing calls are often placed by third-party lead generation companies on behalf of the actual lender, and the lender may attempt to distance itself from the calls by claiming it did not authorize the specific method of outreach. In this case, the complaint names Mortgage One Funding and “its agents,” which suggests the plaintiff anticipates this defense. Courts have generally held that companies are liable for calls made on their behalf, but proving the agency relationship can add complexity to the litigation. The Federal Communications Commission has also been increasingly active in this space, issuing declaratory rulings and proposed rules aimed at closing loopholes around AI-generated calls. However, regulatory action moves slowly compared to the pace of technology adoption, and private lawsuits like this one often provide faster accountability than waiting for new FCC rules to take effect.
What Mortgage One Funding Has Said About the Allegations
As of the filing date, Mortgage One Funding has not yet publicly filed a response to the lawsuit. This is typical in the early stages of federal litigation — defendants generally have 21 days to respond to a complaint after being served, and strategic considerations often lead to extensions.
It is possible that the company will file a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint fails to state a claim, or it may answer the complaint and contest the allegations on the merits. In similar cases, defendants have argued that their calls were placed by independent contractors, that the voices used were human rather than artificial, or that the plaintiff somehow consented to the calls through a prior business relationship. Whether any of these defenses apply here will depend on the facts that emerge during discovery.
What This Case Means for AI Telemarketing Regulation Going Forward
The Landy v. Mortgage One Funding case is part of a wave of litigation that will likely define the legal boundaries of AI-powered marketing for years to come. As more companies experiment with AI calling agents to reduce overhead, the courts will be forced to clarify what constitutes an “artificial voice” under the TCPA, how disclosure requirements apply to increasingly realistic AI speech, and whether existing consent frameworks are adequate for this new technology.
For consumers, the practical takeaway is that the law already provides meaningful protections against unwanted AI marketing calls, even if enforcement depends largely on individual lawsuits. For businesses, the message is that deploying AI calling technology without clear TCPA compliance — including proper consent documentation and upfront disclosure — carries serious financial risk. A single class action can produce damages in the millions, and the reputational cost may be even greater.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Landy v. Mortgage One Funding lawsuit about?
The lawsuit alleges that Mortgage One Funding LLC used AI-generated voice calls to market mortgage refinancing services without obtaining prior express written consent and without disclosing the use of artificial voice technology, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Who qualifies as a class member in this lawsuit?
The proposed class includes all persons in the United States who received similar AI-voice calls from Mortgage One Funding or its agents over the four years preceding the February 24, 2026 filing date.
How much could class members receive?
The TCPA provides statutory damages of $500 per violation, which increases to $1,500 per violation if the court finds the conduct was willful and knowing. With two alleged violations per call, individual recoveries could range from $1,000 to $3,000 per call under the statute.
How do I know if a call used an AI-generated voice?
Common signs include awkward pauses during conversation, unusual speech inflections, stilted or scripted-sounding replies, and an inability to respond naturally to unexpected questions. However, AI voice technology is improving rapidly, and some artificial voices are becoming difficult to distinguish from real human speakers.
Does being on the Do Not Call Registry protect me from all unwanted calls?
No. The National Do Not Call Registry protects against telemarketing calls, but calls from political campaigns, charities, survey companies, and businesses with which you have an existing relationship may still be permitted. It also does not prevent illegal callers from ignoring the list entirely.
What should I do if I received a suspicious AI marketing call?
Document the date, time, and phone number of the call. Check your Do Not Call Registry status at donotcall.gov. Save any call recordings if available. You can file a complaint with the FCC or the Federal Trade Commission, and monitor this lawsuit for updates on how to participate as a class member.