Bronstin v. ViaSat, Inc. — Entry #79: ANSWER to [70] Amended Complaint by ViaSat, Inc..(Salem, Kareem)
Case: Bronstin v. ViaSat, Inc. pamd · 1:25-cv-00927
filed May 26, 2025
What this document is
Docket entry #79 · filed August 11, 2026
ANSWER to [70] Amended Complaint by ViaSat, Inc..(Salem, Kareem)
Who is involved
- Asher Bronstin
- ViaSat, Inc.
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- Marathon Digital: its subsidiary “Sullivan Company” appears in a filing in this case.
…Staltari, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, company as [Defendant].” (Id. ¶ 28.) Gillam…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved November 03, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
36 page(s), 57,146 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 1 of 36
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ASHER BRONSTIN, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00927-KMN
(Hon. Keli M. Neary)
v.
CLASS ACTION
VIASAT, INC. and THE PREFERRED
PREPAID, INC. d/b/a XYZies,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT1
Defendant Viasat, Inc. (“Viasat”), in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 and
the Court’s scheduling order (see Dkt. 73), hereby respectfully submits its Answer
and Affirmative Defenses to the “Second Amended Class Action Complaint” (see
Dkt. 70, “SAC”) filed by Plaintiff Asher Bronstin (“Plaintiff”) in the above-captioned
matter, and in so doing, Viasat answers, avers, and responds to each of the claims and
allegations therein asserted against Viasat, and asserts certain defenses, as follows:
1. The allegations in Paragraph 1 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
1
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is incorrectly captioned as the First
Amended Complaint.
1
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 2 of 36
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated any applicable law. Any remaining allegations in this
Paragraph are denied.
2. The allegations in Paragraph 2 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated any applicable law. Any remaining allegations in this
Paragraph are denied.
3. As to the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the SAC, Viasat admits only that
Plaintiff purports to bring a lawsuit against Viasat and the other named defendant for
purported violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), but
denies that there has been any such violation or any other legal violation. Any
remaining allegations in this Paragraph are denied.
PARTIES
4. Viasat admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the SAC.
5. Viasat admits the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the SAC.
6. The allegations in Paragraph 6 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and thus no response is required. To the extent a
response is deemed required, Viasat lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
2
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 3 of 36
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of the SAC and, on this basis, denies
them.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. The allegations in Paragraph 7 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is
deemed required, Viasat admits only that Plaintiff purports to invoke this Court’s
federal jurisdiction to the extent the TCPA is a federal statute, but denies that such
jurisdiction is proper to the extent Plaintiff lacks Article III standing. Any remaining
allegations in this Paragraph are denied.
8. The allegations in Paragraph 8 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Responding
further, Viasat admits only that it is registered to do business in Pennsylvania, but
denies any implication of liability that may be inferred therefrom. Responding
further, Viasat lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of any remaining allegations in Paragraph 8 of the SAC and, on this basis,
denies them.
9. The allegations in Paragraph 9 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
3
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 4 of 36
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Any remaining
allegations in this Paragraph are denied.
BACKGROUND
A. The TCPA Prohibits Calls to Numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.
10. The allegations in Paragraph 10 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
in this Paragraph are denied.
11. The allegations in Paragraph 11 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
in this Paragraph are denied.
12. The allegations in Paragraph 12 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
4
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 5 of 36
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
in this Paragraph are denied.
13. The allegations in Paragraph 13 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
in this Paragraph are denied.
B. The TCPA Also Requires Telemarketers to Transmit Caller Identification
Information Including the Telemarketer’s Name.
14. The allegations in Paragraph 14 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
in this Paragraph are denied.
15. The allegations in Paragraph 15 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
5
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 6 of 36
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
in this Paragraph are denied.
16. The allegations in Paragraph 16 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
in this Paragraph are denied.
17. The allegations in Paragraph 17 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
in this Paragraph are denied.
18. The allegations in Paragraph 18 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
6
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 7 of 36
in this Paragraph are denied.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
19. The allegations in Paragraph 19 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
admits only that Plaintiff is a “person” but denies any implication of liability that
may be inferred therefrom and further denies having violated the TCPA or any
applicable law. Any remaining allegations in this Paragraph are denied.
20. The allegations in Paragraph 20 of the SAC reflect, in whole or in part,
legal conclusions, as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is
deemed required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions.
Responding further, Viasat lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of any allegations in Paragraph 20 of the SAC and, on this basis,
denies them.
21. The allegations in Paragraph 21 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Responding
further, Viasat lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
7
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 8 of 36
truth of any remaining allegations in Paragraph 21 of the SAC and, on this basis,
denies them.
22. Viasat lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the SAC and, on this basis, denies
them.
23. The allegations in Paragraph 23 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Responding
further, Viasat lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of any remaining allegations in Paragraph 23 of the SAC and, on this basis,
denies them.
24. The allegations in Paragraph 24 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Responding
further, Viasat lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of any remaining allegations in Paragraph 24 of the SAC and, on this basis,
denies them.
25. Viasat lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
8
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 9 of 36
the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the SAC and, on this basis, denies
them.
26. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the SAC.
27. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the SAC.
28. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the SAC.
29. The allegations in Paragraph 29 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Any remaining
allegations in this Paragraph are denied.
30. The allegations in Paragraph 30 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions as to which no response is required, and/or purport to summarize a
document produced in discovery, which speaks for itself. To the extent a response is
deemed required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions and
summarization. Responding further, Viasat lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any remaining allegations in Paragraph
30 of the SAC and, on this basis, denies them.
31. The allegations in Paragraph 31 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
9
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 10 of 36
conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Any remaining
allegations in this Paragraph are denied.
32. The allegations in Paragraph 32 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Any remaining
allegations in this Paragraph are denied.
33. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the SAC.
34. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the SAC.
35. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the SAC.
36. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the SAC.
37. The allegations in Paragraph 37 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions as to which no response is required, and/or purport to summarize a
document produced in discovery, which speaks for itself. To the extent a response is
deemed required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions and
summarization. Responding further, Viasat lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any remaining allegations in Paragraph
37 of the SAC and, on this basis, denies them.
10
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 11 of 36
38. The allegations in Paragraph 38 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Any remaining
allegations in this Paragraph are denied.
39. The allegations in Paragraph 39 of the SAC purport to summarize a
document or other material produced in discovery, which speaks for itself. To the
extent a response is deemed required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s
summarization. Any remaining allegations in this Paragraph are denied.
40. The allegations in Paragraph 40 of the SAC purport to summarize a
document or other material produced in discovery, which speaks for itself. To the
extent a response is deemed required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s
summarization. Any remaining allegations in this Paragraph are denied.
41. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the SAC.
42. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the SAC.
43. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the SAC.
44. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the SAC, including
any that may be inferred from the included screenshots.
45. The allegations in Paragraph 45 of the SAC purport to summarize a
document produced in discovery, which speaks for itself. To the extent a response is
11
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 12 of 36
deemed required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s summarization. Any
remaining allegations in this Paragraph are denied, including any that may be
inferred from the included screenshots.
46. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the SAC.
47. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the SAC.
48. The allegations in Paragraph 48 of the SAC purport to summarize a
document produced in discovery, which speaks for itself. To the extent a response is
deemed required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s summarization. Any
remaining allegations in this Paragraph are denied.
49. The allegations in Paragraph 49 of the SAC purport to summarize a
document produced in discovery, which speaks for itself. To the extent a response is
deemed required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s summarization. Any
remaining allegations in this Paragraph are denied, including any that may be
inferred from the included screenshot.
50. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the SAC.
51. As to the allegations of Paragraph 51 of the SAC, Viasat denies that IP
Horizon is Viasat’s “calling carrier” or that any calls were placed to Plaintiff by or
on behalf of Viasat. Viasat lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 51 of the SAC (including in
the provided table) and, on this basis, denies them.
12
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 13 of 36
52. As to the allegations of Paragraph 52 of the SAC, Viasat denies that IP
Horizon is Viasat’s “calling carrier” or that any calls were placed to Plaintiff by or
on behalf of Viasat. Viasat lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 52 of the SAC and, on this
basis, denies them.
53. Viasat lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the SAC and, on this basis, denies
them, but denies any liability as to Viasat that could be inferred therefrom.
54. The allegations in Paragraph 54 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Viasat lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations in Paragraph 54 of the SAC and, on this basis, denies them.
55. The allegations in Paragraph 55 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, Viasat denies the accuracy of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Viasat lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations in Paragraph 55 of the SAC and, on this basis, denies them.
13
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 14 of 36
56. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the SAC.
57. The allegations in Paragraph 57 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
in this Paragraph are denied.
58. The allegations in Paragraph 58 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
in this Paragraph are denied.
59. The allegations in Paragraph 59 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
in this Paragraph are denied.
60. The allegations in Paragraph 60 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
14
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 15 of 36
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
in this Paragraph are denied.
61. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the SAC.
62. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the SAC.
63. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the SAC.
64. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the SAC.
65. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the SAC.
66. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the SAC.
67. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the SAC.
68. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the SAC.
69. The allegations in Paragraph 69 of the SAC purport to summarize or
characterize the content of a website, which speaks for itself, and thus no response
is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat denies the accuracy
of Plaintiff’s summarization or characterizations. Responding further, Viasat admits
that it presently has a business relationship with XYZies, but denies any implication
of liability that may be inferred therefrom. Any remaining allegations in this
Paragraph are denied, including any that may be inferred from the provided
15
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 16 of 36
screenshot.
70. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the SAC.
71. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the SAC.
72. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the SAC.
73. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the SAC.
74. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the SAC.
75. The allegations in Paragraph 75 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
in this Paragraph are denied.
76. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the SAC.
77. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 77 of the SAC.
78. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 78 of the SAC.
79. As to the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the SAC, Viasat denies that any
calls were placed to Plaintiff by or on behalf of Viasat. Viasat lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in
Paragraph 79 of the SAC and, on this basis, denies them.
80. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the SAC.
16
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 17 of 36
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
81. As to the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the SAC, Viasat incorporates
by reference its responses to Paragraph 1 through 80 above, as if fully stated herein.
82. As to the allegations in Paragraph 82 of the SAC, Viasat admits only
that Plaintiff purports to bring a claim on behalf of himself and putative class
members and seeks class treatment, but denies that any class exists, the proposed
class definitions are proper, the SAC includes any facially-certifiable class
allegations, Viasat violated the TCPA or any other applicable law, Plaintiff has stated
a plausible claim for relief or has standing to bring a claim under the TCPA, Plaintiff
would be an adequate class representative, or this case is worthy or capable of class
treatment. Any remaining allegations in this Paragraph are denied.
83. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 83 of the SAC.
84. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 84 of the SAC.
85. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 85 of the SAC.
86. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 86 of the SAC, including
all subparagraphs.
87. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 87 of the SAC.
88. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 88 of the SAC, including
all subparagraphs.
17
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 18 of 36
COUNT I
Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the National DNC Class)
89. As to the allegations in Paragraph 89 of the SAC, Viasat incorporates
by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 88 above, as if fully stated herein.
90. The allegations in Paragraph 90 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law. Any remaining allegations
in this Paragraph are denied.
91. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 91 of the SAC.
92. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 92 of the SAC.
93. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 93 of the SAC.
94. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 94 of the SAC.
COUNT II
Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Telemarketing Caller ID Class)
95. As to the allegations in Paragraph 95 of the SAC, Viasat incorporates
by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 94 above, as if fully stated herein.
96. The allegations in Paragraph 96 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
18
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 19 of 36
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law or that there is a private cause
of action under the cited regulation. Any remaining allegations in this Paragraph are
denied.
97. The allegations in Paragraph 97 of the SAC do not appear to reflect
allegations of fact against Viasat and instead reflect, in whole or in part, legal
conclusions and/or a summary or quotation of legal authority, which speaks for itself,
and thus no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Viasat
denies having violated the TCPA or any applicable law or that there is a private cause
of action under the cited regulation. Any remaining allegations in this Paragraph are
denied.
98. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 98 of the SAC.
99. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 99 of the SAC.
100. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 100 of the SAC.
101. Viasat denies all the allegations in Paragraph 101 of the SAC.
PLAINTIFF’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Viasat denies each and every allegation set forth in the “Prayer
for Relief” in Plaintiff’s SAC (including all subparts), and specifically denies that
Plaintiff is entitled to any of the damages or other relief requested in the SAC, either
19
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 20 of 36
expressly or by implication, including but not limited to the specific relief requested
on pages 18-19 of the SAC, or to any relief whatsoever, and demands the strictest of
proof of all alleged damages, injuries, and harms. Viasat further denies that it violated
the TCPA or any other law in relation to this action, and thus denies Plaintiff is entitled
to relief under such laws. Viasat further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to treble
damages or “[s]uch other and further relief” Plaintiff requests in the SAC, including
but not limited to injunctive relief, fees, costs, or punitive damages.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Viasat does not oppose at this time Plaintiff’s demand for jury trial.
VIASAT’S GENERAL DENIALS
All allegations in the SAC, including those presented in any and all attached
exhibits or in any and all subparts or subparagraphs or in any preamble or footnotes,
that are not specifically admitted above are hereby expressly and fully denied, and
Viasat denies any and all allegations implied or that may be inferred from any captions
or headings in or footnotes to the SAC or that purport to relate to conduct by other
parties. For the avoidance of doubt, as to the responses above, Viasat denies any
liability as to having violated the TCPA, or any other applicable state or federal law,
or that Plaintiff is entitled to any damages or other relief under the TCPA or otherwise,
including but not limited to the specific statutory provisions identified in the SAC or
others. Viasat further denies Plaintiff or any putative class member is entitled to any
20
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 21 of 36
relief or damages whatsoever, and demands strict proof thereof. Viasat further denies
that this Court has proper federal subject matter jurisdiction (particularly to the extent
Plaintiff lacks Article III standing) or that Plaintiff is entitled to class treatment. Any
scrivener’s error herein should not be construed against Viasat and should be
construed as a denial rather than an admission of liability.
VIASAT’S AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
By alleging the affirmative and other defenses herein and below, Viasat intends
no alteration of any burden of proof that otherwise exists with regard to the claims in
the SAC. All defenses are pled in the alternative and do not constitute an admission
either of liability, of subject matter jurisdiction, or as to whether Plaintiff is entitled to
relief. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in these defenses should be construed as
an admission of liability, and any allegation of fault by Viasat in the SAC is denied.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Claim)
For all of the same reasons Viasat previously identified (see Dkt. 24 and 37),
Viasat contends that the SAC fails to set forth facts sufficient to state or constitute a
claim against Viasat under the TCPA or any other law, fails to plead facts
demonstrating Article III standing, and fails to state facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiff
or any putative class member to the relief sought, or any relief whatsoever. Further,
Viasat contends Plaintiff will be unable to establish such facts as necessary to satisfy
21
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 22 of 36
Plaintiff’s burden of proof as to the claim asserted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Not Willful and/or Knowing)
Plaintiff has not carried and cannot carry his burden of showing that any action
or omission by Viasat was “willful” or “knowing” and, therefore, is not entitled to
treble damages under the TCPA or any other law that provides for treble damages.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Consent, and/or Established Business Relationship)
Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred because, to the extent
Plaintiff received any telephonic communications from Viasat, or from third parties
on Viasat’s behalf in this action if any, which is denied, (i) Plaintiff requested to
receive said telephonic communications, (ii) any such telephonic communications
were sent with Plaintiff’s “prior express invitation or permission” (or “prior express
written consent” or “prior express consent” where required), (iii) he had an
“established business relationship” with Viasat or the caller, (iv) his consent was not
required on account of the nature of the calls or the technology used (i.e., the at-issue
calls did not involve an artificial or prerecorded voice, or the equipment used to make
calls is not covered by or subject to the TCPA’s requirements), and/or (v) such
telephonic communications were sent in response to an inquiry, were not unwanted,
and, in fact, were requested and/or consented to by Plaintiff, an authorized third-party,
22
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 23 of 36
and/or the regular user and/or subscriber of the subject phone number who may have
been acting in concert with Plaintiff.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Error)
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because, to the extent he
received any violative communications directly from Viasat or on behalf of Viasat,
which Viasat denies, such communications were the result of bona fide error.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Good Faith)
At all times relevant to the matters alleged in the SAC, Viasat acted in good
faith, reasonably and without any actual or constructive knowledge of any alleged
breach of any legal duty owed to Plaintiff, or any other alleged wrong done to Plaintiff.
Additionally, all conduct and activities of Viasat alleged in the SAC conformed
to statutes, regulations and industry standards based upon the state of knowledge
existing at the time(s) alleged in the SAC. As a consequence, some or all of Plaintiff’s
claim is barred in full, or in part, based on Viasat’s (or any purported agent’s) good
faith belief that they had good cause and/or a legitimate business reason to act as they
did and did not directly or indirectly perform any acts that would constitute a violation
of Plaintiff’s rights. Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations that he is entitled to treble
damages based on “knowing” or “willful” violations are barred for this same reason.
23
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 24 of 36
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Third Party Acts)
Plaintiff’s claims are barred because the alleged conduct was caused or
contributed to by the acts or omissions of Plaintiff and/or third parties other than
Viasat, over which Viasat had no control, and for which Viasat is not liable either
directly or vicariously. For the avoidance of doubt, Viasat is not directly or vicariously
liable for the alleged unlawful acts of any other party or third party because, inter alia,
(i) it did not physically make the communications at issue, (ii) it did not have a
common law agency relationship with any third party that did make the subject
communications, and (iii) it cannot be held liable under the TCPA pursuant to any
common law agency theory (including actual authority, apparent authority, or
ratification).
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Join)
Plaintiff’s claims fail due to his failure to join necessary or indispensable parties
in this action, including but not limited to the person(s) or entity (or entities) who sent
the alleged communications at issue in purported violation of the TCPA and/or acted
on such person’s or entity’s behalf in doing so and any other user or owner of the
subject phone number who provided consent to be contacted by Viasat.
24
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 25 of 36
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Fifth Amendment Due Process)
To the extent the TCPA is applied against Viasat to impose upon Viasat liability
in circumstances that Viasat could not have reasonably avoided and/or damages that
would be grossly disproportional to any actual harm caused by the activity in question,
the TCPA violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. See Golan v. Veritas Ent., LLC, 2017 WL 3923162, at *3 (E.D.
Mo. Sept. 7, 2017), aff'd sub nom. 930 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2019) (citing Capitol
Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 692 F.3d 899, 907 (8th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he TCPA’s
statutory damages clause is constitutional, but a specific damages award may be
unconstitutional if it is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportionate to
the offense and obviously unreasonable.”)).
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Due Process – Punitive Damages)
To the extent that the SAC seeks punitive or exemplary damages under the
TCPA, it violates the rights of Viasat under the Due Process provisions of the United
States Constitution, as grossly excessive penalties entered on a discretionary basis
may amount to an “arbitrary deprivation of property without the due process of law.”
See, e.g., TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Res. Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 453, 454 (1993);
BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 562 (1996). The TCPA affords discretion
25
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 26 of 36
to award up to $1,500.00 “per violation.”
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines)
If the TCPA is applied against Viasat to impose liability grossly disproportional
to any actual harm allegedly caused by the activity in question, the TCPA violates the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits excessive fines.
Statutory penalties violate due process rights “where the penalty prescribed is so
severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportionate to the offense and obviously
unreasonable.” United States v. Citrin, 972 F. 2d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting
St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63, 66-67 (1919)).
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(De Minimis Harm)
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of de minimis
harm because the actual harm allegedly suffered by Plaintiff (if any, which is not
conceded and expressly denied) is negligible.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Equitable Defenses)
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, based upon the doctrines of
unclean hands, estoppel, waiver, and/or other doctrines or theories of equity, including
but not limited to assumption of risk, particularly (but not limited) to the extent that
26
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 27 of 36
Plaintiff consented to receiving the communications and/or authorized another
person’s use of the phone number at issue and/or provision of consent for calls to that
number, or requested, sought out, induced or otherwise encouraged communications
for the sole or intended purpose of bringing TCPA claims. For the avoidance of doubt,
failure to list a specific equitable defense herein should not be construed as a waiver
of any equitable defenses. Rather, Viasat invokes, without limitation, any and all
equitable defenses available to it under applicable law and interpretive authority.
For the avoidance of doubt, Viasat asserts, without limitation, all defenses,
protections, and limitations available to it under the TCPA and its related
implementing regulations, or any other applicable law as to Plaintiff’s claims in the
SAC, including but not limited to that (1) Viasat did not contact Plaintiff without
consent, (2) Viasat did not contact or authorize others to contact Plaintiff as alleged in
the SAC (or at all), (3) Viasat has established and implemented, with due care,
reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent violations of the TCPA’s
regulations, and such practices and procedures were in place and followed at all
relevant times, (4) Plaintiff did not receive an actionable “telephone solicitation” or
“telemarketing” call within the meaning of the TCPA or other applicable law, (5)
Plaintiff requested, sought out, consented to, induced or otherwise encouraged contact
for the sole or intended purpose of bringing TCPA and/or equivalent claims, without
having suffered any injury, and/or (6) upon information and belief, the telephone
27
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 28 of 36
number at issue is used by and for Plaintiff’s business purposes and is used for
“residential” purposes (including that the number is not the primary means of reaching
him at his residence), and therefore Plaintiff does not qualify as a “residential
telephone subscriber” within the meaning of the TCPA.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)
Plaintiff is not entitled to relief because, if Plaintiff has been damaged, which
Viasat denies, Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, and therefore any recovery
against Viasat is barred or should be reduced accordingly.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Standing)
Plaintiff lacks standing to bring his claims under Article III of the United States
Constitution or otherwise (including “prudential” or “statutory” standing), particularly
to the extent that Plaintiff did not suffer a concrete and particularized injury in fact
that is traceable to or redressable by Viasat for all of the reasons previously stated (see
Dkt. 24 and 37), and/or to the extent that Plaintiff (i) is not the subscriber, owner
and/or user of the subject phone number, (ii) consented to receiving the
communications at issue in this action, (iii) requested to be called, (iv) did not actually
receive the subject communications or did not do so on the subject number, (v)
induced the communications and/or authorized another third-party to do so on his
28
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 29 of 36
behalf, and/or (vi) is not within the “zone of interests” that the TCPA and other laws
invoked in his SAC were designed to protect, among other reasons.
In particular, and without limitation, Plaintiff lacks standing as Viasat did not
send or authorize the unlawful communications as alleged (and in fact, upon
information and belief, Plaintiff has fabricated his claims in this case and is a
professional serial litigant abusing the TCPA for profit) and therefore did not cause
any injury to Plaintiff. Further, because Viasat did not send or authorize the
communications as alleged to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s alleged injury, if any, cannot be
traced to, or redressed by, Viasat.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Legitimate Business Purpose)
All conduct and activities of Viasat, including any purported agents, alleged in
the SAC conformed to statutes, regulations and industry standards based upon the
state of knowledge existing at the time(s) alleged in the SAC. As a consequence, some
or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred in full, or in part, based on Viasat’s good faith
belief that Viasat or any third party purporting to act on its behalf had good cause
and/or a legitimate business reason to act as they did and did not directly or indirectly
perform any acts that would constitute a violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
29
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 30 of 36
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Intervening/Superseding Cause)
The SAC is barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that Plaintiff’s purported
damages, if any, resulted from acts and/or omissions of other parties, third parties,
conditions, or by forces and/or things over whom/which Viasat had no control,
including but not limited to any user or subscriber of the phone number who provided
consent to receive the calls at issue. Plaintiff’s claim is barred for the additional reason
that, upon information and belief, Plaintiff consented to receiving the communications
at issue or authorized others to do so, and/or expressly invited or solicited the
communications for the intended purpose of bringing a TCPA or equivalent claim.
Thus, the acts of Plaintiff or such other parties/third parties/forces/conditions
constitute intervening or superseding causes of any purported harm.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Proximate Cause)
If Plaintiff suffered or sustained any damages or injury as a proximate result of
the purported conduct of Viasat or third parties purportedly acting on its behalf, which
Viasat denies, such damages or injury were proximately caused by or contributed to
by the acts and/or negligence of Plaintiff and/or third parties, which bars or reduces
Plaintiff’s right to recover any such damages against Viasat. Accordingly, Plaintiff is
barred from recovering any such damages and/or is subject to a proportionate
30
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 31 of 36
reduction on a comparative fault basis for any alleged damages so caused.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Ratification)
The cause of action in the SAC is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines
of acquiescence, ratification, and consent for the reasons stated above and below, and
for others. This is because, among other reasons, Plaintiff consented to receiving the
communications at issue, and/or expressly invited or solicited the communications for
the intended purpose of bringing a TCPA (or equivalent) claim.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Safe Harbor)
At all times relevant to the matters alleged in the SAC, Viasat had established
and implemented written procedures to comply with (and has so complied with) the
applicable TCPA Do-Not-Call rules. For the avoidance of doubt, Viasat asserts all
“safe harbor” and other affirmative defenses available to it under all applicable TCPA
provisions and related implementing regulations, as interpreted by the Federal
Communications Commission and applicable decisional authority and as amended,
31
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 32 of 36
pertaining to Plaintiff’s allegations against Viasat in this matter (see, e.g., 47 U.S.C.
§§ 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)) without limitation.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Class Not Certifiable)
Plaintiff does not meet the class requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Viasat contends that Plaintiff cannot meet, at the
minimum, the class certification requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequate representation. Additionally, the putative class is not ascertainable by
objective measures and common issues of law and fact do not predominate over
individualized inquiries, including because the circumstances under which individuals
might provide consent and/or revoke consent can naturally vary by individual.
Plaintiff also cannot meet the requirements for class certification because he is not a
member of the class he seeks to represent, to the extent that there has been no TCPA
violation by Viasat.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Injunctive Relief)
Plaintiff has failed to state facts (and indeed there are no such facts) that would
entitle Plaintiff or any putative class member to obtain injunctive relief because,
32
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 33 of 36
among other reasons, there is no threat of immediate, imminent, and/or continuing
harm, and therefore Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this relief and/or such relief is
not available as a matter of law. See, e.g., Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S.
149, 158 (2014); TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 435 (2021); Miller v.
Time Warner Cable Inc., 2016 WL 7471302, at *2–4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2016).
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Reservation of Defenses; Additional or Other Defenses)
Certain additional affirmative and other defenses to the SAC and to the
purported claims for relief stated therein may be available to Viasat. However, these
additional defenses may require discovery before they can be properly alleged as
certain information is in the hands of Plaintiff and/or third parties. Thus, Viasat
reserves the right to assert other separate and additional defenses, if and when they
become appropriate in this action and to the extent allowed. Viasat further reserves
and does not waive any arbitral rights against Plaintiff (to the extent Viasat
determined that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to a binding arbitration agreement
between the parties) and/or any right to seek sanctions against Plaintiff or his counsel
under 28 U.S.C. §1927, Fed. R. Civ. P 11, and other applicable rules or law,
particularly as Plaintiff’s SAC lacks any good faith basis in law or fact and indeed
contains demonstrably false allegations that have already been proven false in
discovery, among other reasons. Viasat also reserves and does not waive the right to
33
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 34 of 36
bring an affirmative action against Plaintiff, his counsel, or any responsible third
parties, if and when it determines it has a legal and factual basis to do so, in accordance
with applicable rules and law. For the avoidance of doubt, Viasat reserves all rights
and privileges afforded to it under applicable rules and law, and intends no waiver
hereby, whether or not said rights and privilege are expressly identified herein.
VIASAT’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Viasat respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in
its favor, dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC with prejudice, award Viasat all of its costs and
attorneys’ fees incurred in defending this action to the extent available under
applicable law, and grant Viasat all other relief as the Court deems just and
appropriate.
34
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 35 of 36
Dated: August 11, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Kareem A. Salem
John W. McGuinness
(Pro Hac Vice to be Requested)
A. Paul Heeringa
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Kareem A. Salem
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
1700 M ST, NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: 202-585-6500
jmcguinness@manatt.com
pheeringa@manatt.com
ksalem@manatt.com
FREDERICK P. SANTARELLI (PA 53901)
STEVEN C. TOLLIVER, JR. (PA 327165)
ELLIOTT GREENLEAF, P.C.
Union Meeting Corporate Center V
925 Harvest Drive, Suite 300
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(215) 977-1000 (phone)
FPSantarelli@elliottgreenleaf.com
sct@elliottgreenleaf.com
Counsel for Defendant Viasat, Inc.
35
Case 1:25-cv-00927-KMN Document 79 Filed 08/11/26 Page 36 of 36
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on August 11, 2026, I filed the foregoing electronically
through the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notice of the filing to all counsel
of record.
By: /s/ Kareem A. Salem
36