FirstAlerts
Regulators & Courts

Molina Healthcare Settles TCPA Wrong-Number Class Action for $1.93 Million

A federal court granted final approval of a $1.93 million class action settlement in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act suit against Molina Healthcare and Icario.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 21, 2026, 12:45 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 21, 2026, 12:53 p.m. ET
A district court granted final approval of a $1.93 million class action in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) suit, according to a reported by the National Law Review. The resolves claims against Molina Healthcare, Inc., Molina Healthcare of California, and Icario, Inc. The case is . The provides monetary relief to the class; the release does not specify whether the sum is a penalty, disgorgement, or redress to consumers. The proceeding stage is listed as "," and the resolution type is .

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 21, 2026, 12:45 p.m. ETFirst report

    Molina Healthcare Settles TCPA Wrong-Number Class Action for $1.93 Million

    A district court granted final approval to a $1.93 million class action settlement in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuit, according to a report by the National Law Review. The case, Kruzel v. Molina Healthcare, 2026 WL 2409400 (D. Or. Aug. 17, 2026), was resolved through a consented settlement.

    The defendants are Molina Healthcare, Inc., Molina Healthcare of California, and Icario, Inc. The litigation release, as reported by the National Law Review, indicates the settlement resolves claims related to wrong-number calls. The court's final approval was granted on August 17, 2026.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 121 Aug 2026, 16:45current

    First published.

  2. Version 121 Aug 2026, 16:53current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.