Clarity Debt Resolution: TCPA Lawsuits and Consumer Complaints

Clarity Debt Resolution, an Irvine, California debt settlement company, was hit with two proposed class action lawsuits in 2025 alleging illegal robocalls and prerecorded voicemails under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Both cases settled privately within months, on undisclosed terms. Separately from the lawsuits, the company continues to accumulate consumer complaints about high fees, misleading enrollment pitches, and debts that stayed unsettled for years while monthly payments kept flowing.

The Two TCPA Lawsuits and How They Ended

The first case, Fasolino v. Clarity Debt Resolution, Inc., was filed in December 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleged that Clarity contracted with a lead-generation outfit called United Lending (also known as Consumer 1st Solutions) to place unsolicited telemarketing calls on its behalf, paying for every new customer United Lending recruited. United Lending agents allegedly qualified leads, ran soft credit checks, and sent prospects a Clarity service agreement to sign.¹

The Fasolino complaint accused Clarity of using artificial or prerecorded voices to call cell phones without consent, sending “ringless” voicemail drops directly to inboxes, ignoring the National Do Not Call Registry, and failing to obtain the telephone solicitation registration and bond required under Texas law.¹ The case was dismissed with prejudice on January 17, 2025, after the parties told the court they had resolved the matter. Terms were not disclosed.²

A second TCPA case, Marchica v. Clarity Debt Resolution, Inc., was filed in April 2025 in the Central District of California.³ The plaintiff filed a notice of settlement in principle in August, and on September 2, 2025 filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice.⁴ Financial terms were again kept private.

Because both cases resolved before class certification, no class-wide settlement fund was created and no notice went out to potential class members. Any relief was limited to the named plaintiffs.

What the Robocall Complaints Look Like

After the Fasolino dismissal, a Clarity spokesperson said the company had strengthened its consumer contact policies, required TCPA compliance training for all agents, and added a more rigorous internal auditing process. Complaints logged with the Better Business Bureau in spring 2025 continued to describe unwanted contact: a consumer reporting five to six calls per day despite being on the Do Not Call Registry, another describing unsolicited voicemails advertising consolidation loans, and a third saying they could not get removed from Clarity’s contact lists.²

Clarity’s own website acknowledges that it uses an automatic telephone dialing system for marketing communications, account alerts, and scheduling updates by phone, text, and email.⁵

The law firm Berger Montague has an open investigation into Clarity’s calling practices, focused on potential TCPA violations involving calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry.⁶ If you received robocalls or prerecorded voicemails from Clarity or a lead generator working for it, that investigation is the current avenue for consumers who want to pursue a claim.

Complaints About the Debt Relief Program Itself

The robocall lawsuits are only part of the picture. Clarity’s BBB profile shows 163 complaints over three years, with 65 in the most recent 12-month period. The company holds a B rating and has been BBB-accredited since August 2022.⁷

The complaints cluster around a handful of recurring themes. On fees and billing, consumers allege charges significantly higher than what they were quoted at enrollment, with some describing “bait and switch” pricing. Several describe depositing thousands of dollars in monthly payments and seeing only a fraction reach creditors, with the rest absorbed by service, disbursement, and custodial fees.⁸

On enrollment representations, some consumers say they were told they were signing up for a debt consolidation loan and only learned afterward that they were in a debt settlement program that required them to stop paying creditors. Others report being assured the company charged only a $10 monthly custodial fee, when actual settlement fees were much higher.⁸

Consumers also report difficulty reaching representatives, unreturned voicemails, and long delays when trying to cancel or request refunds.⁹ Some describe consistent monthly deposits over long periods with debts still unresolved, leading to defaults, credit damage, collection activity, and creditor lawsuits. One consumer said an account went unnegotiated for three years. When consumers have asked for itemized account ledgers or recordings of their enrollment calls, the company has refused, describing the recordings and internal communications as company property.⁸

In its written responses, Clarity has said its fees are earned only after a successful settlement, that fee structures are disclosed in contracts and quality-assurance calls, and that credit damage and creditor lawsuits are inherent risks of any debt settlement program. It denies instructing creditors to redirect statements to its office and typically offers to escalate disputes to upper management.⁸

How Client Money Flows Through Forth

Clarity uses a third-party company called Forth, legally Set Forth, LLC, based in Schaumburg, Illinois, to hold client funds in escrow pending settlement. According to Clarity, Forth drafts monthly payments from clients, holds the money in escrow, and issues settlement payments as Clarity authorizes them. Forth charges a $10 monthly custodial fee, which Clarity says is separate from its own settlement fees.⁹

Several BBB complaints involve this arrangement. One consumer reported paying over $3,000 in combined fees to Clarity and Forth while only $700 reached a creditor. Others allege double custodial charges and unauthorized payments processed after they had asked to cancel. Clarity has responded that it cannot stop payments already in the pipeline and that settlement payments continue until an account is officially closed.⁸

Consumer Protections That Apply

Two federal rules matter for people dealing with Clarity. The TCPA prohibits using automated dialing systems or prerecorded messages to call cell phones without prior express consent. Statutory damages are $500 per unwanted call, rising to $1,500 per call if the violation was willful.¹⁰ Because a single campaign can involve thousands of calls, TCPA class actions can produce large aggregate exposure.

The Federal Trade Commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule governs the debt relief industry itself. As amended in 2010, the TSR bars debt relief companies from collecting any fee until they have actually renegotiated, settled, or reduced at least one of the consumer’s debts, the consumer has accepted that result, and the consumer has made at least one payment under the new terms.¹¹ The rule also requires companies to disclose total costs, the estimated timeline for results, and the negative consequences of enrollment, including credit damage and the possibility of being sued by creditors.¹² If the company requires you to set aside funds in a dedicated account, that account must be at an insured financial institution and the debt relief company cannot own, control, or be affiliated with the account administrator.

Who Runs Clarity

Clarity Debt Resolution Inc. was incorporated on December 6, 2021, with operations beginning in March 2021. Its offices are at 17875 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 150-250, in Irvine, California.⁷ The president and CEO is Wahib Joseph “Joey” Al Mashini.

The BBB profile also lists a related entity, Clarity Capital Solutions LLC, managed by Philip Ajlouni and incorporated in September 2020 as a business debt relief referral service. In 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation summarily revoked that entity’s license, followed by a consent order under which Clarity Capital Solutions paid a $2,000 administrative penalty for failing to file an annual report on time.¹³¹⁴

1
ClassAction.org. Fasolino v. Clarity Debt Resolution Inc. Complaint
2
ClassAction.org. Clarity Debt Resolution Unwanted Calls Lawsuit
3
CourtListener. Paolo Marchica v. Clarity Debt Resolution, Inc.
4
PACER Monitor. Paolo Marchica v. Clarity Debt Resolution, Inc.
5
Clarity Debt Resolution. Contact Us
6
Berger Montague. Clarity Debt Resolution TCPA Investigation
7
Better Business Bureau. Clarity Debt Resolution Inc. BBB Profile
8
Better Business Bureau. Clarity Debt Resolution Inc. BBB Complaints
9
Better Business Bureau. Clarity Debt Resolution Inc. BBB Complaints
10
ClassAction.org. Robocalls Lawsuits
11
Federal Trade Commission. Debt Relief Services and the Telemarketing Sales Rule
12
Federal Register. Telemarketing Sales Rule
13
California DFPI. Clarity Capital Solutions LLC Enforcement Action
14
Better Business Bureau. Clarity Capital Solutions LLC BBB Profile