The ClearCaptions lawsuit most people are asking about is Swift v. ClearCaptions, LLC, a 2020 whistleblower case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California by a former senior director of customer service who alleged the company improperly billed the FCC’s Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund. The United States declined to intervene, the whistleblower voluntarily dismissed the fraud counts, and on February 29, 2024, the court dismissed the last remaining claim, for retaliation, with leave to amend.1Justia. Scott Swift v. ClearCaptions, LLC, Memorandum and Order2Bloomberg Law. ClearCaptions Defeats Director’s False Claims Retaliation Suit
Who Sued ClearCaptions and Why
Scott Swift, a former senior director of customer service at ClearCaptions, filed the case in 2020 as a qui tam action on behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act. Case number 2:20-cv-00731-MCE-DB. Swift alleged that ClearCaptions was reactivating deactivated user accounts and then billing the FCC’s TRS Fund for call minutes generated by those accounts.1Justia. Scott Swift v. ClearCaptions, LLC, Memorandum and Order
The original complaint carried four counts: False Claims Act violations, FCA retaliation, unjust enrichment, and payment under mistake of fact.1Justia. Scott Swift v. ClearCaptions, LLC, Memorandum and Order
How the Case Ended
The United States declined to intervene. Swift then voluntarily dismissed every claim in which the government retained an interest, leaving only the retaliation count: his allegation that he was fired for raising concerns about the company’s billing practices.1Justia. Scott Swift v. ClearCaptions, LLC, Memorandum and Order
Senior Judge Morrison C. England Jr. granted ClearCaptions’ motion to dismiss that claim on February 29, 2024. The court found three problems with Swift’s pleading: he had not adequately alleged that he engaged in “protected conduct” under the False Claims Act, he had not shown that his employer was on notice of any such protected conduct, and he had not adequately connected his termination to whistleblowing activity.1Justia. Scott Swift v. ClearCaptions, LLC, Memorandum and Order Swift was given 20 days to file an amended complaint, with the warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal with prejudice.2Bloomberg Law. ClearCaptions Defeats Director’s False Claims Retaliation Suit
The underlying fraud allegations were never adjudicated on the merits.3FCC. ClearCaptions Full Certification Order, DA 26-230
What the Reactivation Claim Was About
ClearCaptions is a federally certified provider of Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS), which transcribes phone conversations in near real time for people who are hard of hearing. Users pay nothing. Providers are reimbursed per minute from the interstate TRS Fund, administered by the FCC under Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act.4PR Newswire. ClearCaptions Increases Call Captioning Speed and Accuracy for Hard of Hearing With Automatic Speech Recognition5ClearCaptions. TRS URD
To bill the fund, a provider must have each user registered in the FCC’s TRS User Registration Database, must hold a self-certification from that user, made under penalty of perjury, that they have a qualifying hearing loss, and must maintain detailed call records.6Federal Register. TRS Fund Support for Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service Compensation Swift’s core allegation was that accounts that had been taken out of that eligible pool were being put back in so the resulting minutes could be billed.1Justia. Scott Swift v. ClearCaptions, LLC, Memorandum and Order
Separate FCC Waiver Petitions
The Swift case is not the only ClearCaptions matter in the public record involving TRS Fund billing. The company has also filed two petitions asking the FCC for waivers of certain recordkeeping and registration rules. These are regulatory proceedings, not enforcement actions, and the FCC has not characterized either request as a violation.7FCC. FCC Seeks Comment on ClearCaptions Petitions for Waiver
In January 2023, ClearCaptions asked for a limited waiver after a set of user records became incorrect due to what it described as “data corruption issues.” The affected rules require providers to obtain and maintain user registration information and self-certifications before billing the fund, to transmit that data to the FCC’s database, and to avoid practices that cause or encourage false claims for fund compensation. Parts of the petition were redacted, and the number of affected records was not publicly disclosed.8FCC. Public Notice, CG Docket No. 03-1239FCC. Public Notice, CG Docket No. 03-123
In March 2025, ClearCaptions filed a second petition seeking a retroactive waiver covering April 2022 through January 2024, relating to rules that require providers to identify in their call detail records which minutes were captioned using automatic speech recognition and to retain records of what consumers paid for IP CTS equipment. The FCC opened the petitions for public comment, with reply comments due by July 7, 2025.8FCC. Public Notice, CG Docket No. 03-1237FCC. FCC Seeks Comment on ClearCaptions Petitions for Waiver
Where ClearCaptions Stands Now
ClearCaptions continues to operate as a certified IP CTS provider. On March 10, 2026, the FCC granted the company full certification for a five-year term running through March 10, 2031, finding it in compliance with the mandatory minimum standards for the service.10FCC. FCC Grants Full IP CTS Certification to ClearCaptions No FCC enforcement action has been brought against ClearCaptions in connection with the allegations raised in the Swift case.3FCC. ClearCaptions Full Certification Order, DA 26-230