Fisher Investments Lawsuit History: TCPA, Fiduciary Duty, and Fraud

Fisher Investments lawsuits fall into two main groups: telemarketing class actions brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and individual client claims alleging mismanagement or breach of fiduciary duty. The Camas, Washington advisory firm has also been party to arbitrations tied to an employee fraud and to a dispute over its own arbitration clause. Despite this history, Fisher Investments carries no disciplinary or regulatory disclosures on the Form ADV it files with the SEC, and no federal or state enforcement actions appear in the public record.¹

TCPA Telemarketing Cases

The most prominent lawsuits against Fisher Investments have alleged illegal cold calling. Two class actions have been filed, and both turned in the firm’s favor.

Bryant v. Fisher Investments (2021)

In April 2021, North Carolina resident Mark Bryant filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. He alleged the firm used an automatic telephone dialing system to place roughly 15 unsolicited calls to his cellphone without consent, in violation of the TCPA and the National Do Not Call Registry.² Bryant sought injunctive relief and statutory damages of at least $500 per violation for himself and a proposed class.³

Fisher denied the allegations. Senior Vice President John Dillard called the suit “frivolous” and said the company does not use auto-dialers or make cold calls, communicating only with individuals who have requested information.² By September 2021, the parties reached a stipulated agreement. Bryant’s individual claims were dismissed with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs. The proposed class claims were dismissed without prejudice, leaving the door technically open for another plaintiff to refile. No refiling followed.⁴

Human v. Fisher Investments (2024–2026)

The second TCPA case ended very differently. In August 2024, plaintiff Daniel Human filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, again alleging automated cold calling.⁵ Fisher responded with a fraud counterclaim, alleging Human, or someone acting on his behalf, had submitted his own phone number to company websites using fake names, including “Veronica Moreno,” to manufacture the appearance of unsolicited calls and create a basis to sue.⁶

The case unraveled during discovery. Judge Matthew T. Schelp documented what he called a “months-long pattern of obstruction.” Human disposed of his desktop computer less than 48 hours before a court-ordered forensic inspection. He then submitted a laptop that a forensic examiner concluded he had never actually used. He invoked the Fifth Amendment dozens of times during depositions when asked about the alleged fraud. The court also noted Human had filed over 65 TCPA actions within a single year.⁶ Forensic analysis of his phone showed text messages addressed to over a dozen different names but “hardly any” addressed to Human himself, a pattern an expert testified was unprecedented.⁷

In April 2026, Judge Schelp dismissed all of Human’s claims and struck his pleadings as a sanction under Rule 37 and the court’s inherent authority, finding intentional destruction of evidence.⁶ Fisher’s fraud counterclaim, which alleges Human made “extortionate settlement demands” based on fabricated TCPA violations, remains active and is proceeding toward a jury trial. Human’s answer to the counterclaim has been stricken, so his liability is no longer in dispute, only damages.⁷

Client Claims of Mismanagement and Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Individual clients have sued or arbitrated against Fisher over portfolio losses, most often alleging the firm kept them in aggressive equity allocations that were inconsistent with their objectives.

The Ford and Murphy Cases

In May 2009, Maurine Ford sued in federal court in Houston, alleging the firm caused significant losses to a living trust it began managing in June 2008. Her complaint said Fisher recommended reallocating the portfolio to 100% equities from a prior mix of 27% cash, 32% fixed income, and 41% equities, just before markets collapsed.⁸

Around the same time, Brent and Michelle Murphy filed an arbitration through JAMS in Atlanta over a $2.5 million portfolio, alleging the firm invested almost exclusively in stocks despite the 2008 downturn and failed to protect elderly and retired clients. Ken Fisher publicly dismissed both matters, telling reporters they involved “similarly incompetent” lawyers and would “run into a concrete wall.”⁸

The 2020 Elder Abuse Case

In January 2020, a 76-year-old plaintiff identified in court records as “Jane Doe” sued in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging financial elder abuse, constructive fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. She claimed the firm’s mismanagement of her trust assets produced a tax liability of nearly $1 million, and she sought triple and punitive damages.⁹

The plaintiff died in the fall of 2020. In April 2021, Judge Gregory W. Alarcon stayed the case and ordered the parties to arbitration, with the plaintiff’s unnamed successor pursuing the claim.⁹ Fisher maintained its advice had been “beneficial.”¹⁰ The outcome of the arbitration is not public.

Other Arbitration Claims

Other fiduciary-duty claims include the Houston lawsuit over the managed living trust and an arbitration claim by a retired doctor and his wife alleging $1.2 million in losses tied to the firm’s failure to adjust strategy during a market downturn.⁸

The Swanson Employee Fraud and Lin Arbitration

One case arose not from Fisher’s investment strategy but from the criminal conduct of a former employee. Between 2009 and 2012, Alex Swanson, while working at the firm, defrauded client Ping-Kuo Lin of approximately $713,346 through a fictitious entity he called the “Stellar Fund” and presented as a private equity opportunity.¹¹

Swanson told Lin that a non-compete agreement prevented Lin from investing directly with Fisher, causing Lin to hide the Stellar Fund investments from Fisher’s other advisors. Fisher terminated Swanson in January 2012 after Merrill Lynch flagged suspicious activity involving a different former client. The firm had previously warned Swanson in May 2011 for soliciting non-Fisher leads and in November 2011 for misusing his corporate credit card.¹¹

Lin filed an arbitration against Fisher. Arbitrator Ariel E. Belen issued the final award on November 25, 2014, finding that Swanson had acted as a “swindler” operating independently of Fisher and that Lin had knowingly engaged in the Stellar Fund investments separately from his Fisher account. Swanson pleaded guilty to defrauding Lin and was awaiting sentencing in federal court as of late 2014. The specific monetary ruling against Fisher was not made public in available records.¹¹

Wootten and the Arbitration Clause

A dispute brought by client Thomas A. Wootten produced an appellate ruling on the reach of Fisher’s mandatory arbitration clause. In 2007, Wootten signed a Letter of Agreement with a Delaware choice-of-law provision and a mandatory arbitration clause. After losing $316,000, he initiated arbitration in October 2008.¹²

The arbitrator dismissed Wootten’s Missouri statutory claims in December 2009, ruling Delaware law governed, and then barred him from adding a federal securities claim under the Investment Advisers Act. Wootten challenged the agreement in federal court. The district court dismissed his claims, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed in July 2012, holding that the agreement’s “clear and unmistakable” delegation of threshold questions to the arbitrator required federal courts to defer.¹³ The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on January 7, 2013.¹⁴

Regulatory Record and Consumer Complaints

Fisher Investments has no disciplinary disclosures on its Form ADV, the SEC document where registered investment advisers must report regulatory actions, criminal proceedings, and arbitration losses above set thresholds. The firm has been SEC-registered since March 1987.¹

Complaints about the firm’s phone outreach have continued outside the courts. Since 2016, 125 grievances involving Fisher Investments have been filed with the Federal Trade Commission, with nearly 90% concerning phone calls and complaints coming from 35 states. The FTC has not filed any do-not-call enforcement actions against the firm, and the company has reportedly received no direct communications from the agency about the complaints. Fisher says it contacts only individuals who have requested information and maintains a suppression list for those who ask to be removed.¹⁵

1
SEC IAPD. Fisher Investments Firm Summary
2
AdvisorHub. Fisher Investments Faces Class Claim Over Cold-Calling Violations
3
The Columbian. Lawsuit: Fisher Investments Violated Federal Telemarketing Law
4
AdvisorHub. Telemarketing Case Against Fisher Investments Dismissed
5
CourtListener. Human v. Fisher Investments, Inc.
6
eComm Alliance. 65 TCPA Lawsuits, One Destroyed Computer
7
Mintz. Telephone and Texting Compliance News Litigation Update
8
InvestmentNews. Lawsuits Against Fisher Investments May Lead to Other Adviser Litigation
9
MyNewsLA. Elder Abuse Suit Against Fisher Investment Goes Before Arbitrator
10
Citywire. Elder Abuse Claim Against Fisher Investments Heads to Arbitration
11
Jus Mundi. Ping Kuo Lin v. Fisher Investments Inc. and Fisher Asset Management LLC, Final Award
12
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Wootten v. Fisher Investments, Inc., No. 11-2476
13
vLex. Wootten v. Fisher Invs., Inc., 688 F.3d 487
14
Supreme Court of the United States. Wootten v. Fisher Investments, Inc., No. 12-519
15
InvestmentNews. Fisher Investments Won’t Take No for an Answer, Prospects Say