Cindy Carroll: The TCPA Plaintiff Challenging Sunflora’s CBD Robocall Campaign
Cindy Carroll, also known as Cynthia Carroll, is a Florida consumer who became the named plaintiff in a major TCPA class action lawsuit against Sunflora, Inc., the parent company behind Your CBD Store. Unlike many high-volume professional litigators profiled in TCPA litigation circles, Carroll appears to be a legitimate consumer plaintiff who allegedly received unwanted prerecorded robocalls promoting CBD products and chose to pursue legal action.
Carroll is not a serial filer. She is not accused of manufacturing claims through fake names, deceptive tactics, or prolonged call strategies. Instead, she alleges that Sunflora repeatedly targeted her with prerecorded telemarketing calls without proper consent, violating both the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).
The lawsuit attracted significant attention from legal commentators, defense attorneys, and consumer advocates because it raises important questions regarding franchise liability, arbitration clauses, class action waivers, and the growing use of prerecorded marketing calls within the CBD industry.
Who Is Cindy Carroll?
Cindy Carroll, also referred to as Cynthia Carroll in court records, is a Florida resident serving as the proposed class representative in a federal class action against Sunflora, Inc.
Unlike professional TCPA litigators who file dozens of lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions, Carroll appears to have pursued a single major TCPA case based on alleged unwanted robocalls.
There is no publicly known indication that Carroll engaged in deceptive tactics, used fake identities, or participated in organized litigation activity. Publicly available records instead portray her as an ordinary consumer pursuing claims tied to alleged prerecorded marketing calls promoting CBD products.
How Carroll Differs From Serial TCPA Litigators
The distinction between Carroll and professional TCPA plaintiffs is significant.
Unlike serial litigators who frequently file dozens of lawsuits across multiple states, Carroll appears associated with one major lawsuit involving Sunflora. There are no known allegations that she manufactured claims, induced calls intentionally, or used misleading information to generate telemarketing contacts.
There are also no known fraud counterclaims, judicial warnings, or allegations of deceptive litigation conduct tied to her case. Instead, Carroll’s lawsuit resembles the traditional consumer-protection model originally envisioned by the TCPA and FTSA.
The Case: Carroll v. Sunflora, Inc.
In August 2024, Carroll filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Sunflora, Inc., the company associated with the Your CBD Store franchise system.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida and alleges that prerecorded telemarketing calls were made without the legally required consent.
The litigation focuses on both federal TCPA claims and claims brought under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
The Core Allegations
According to the complaint, Carroll allegedly received prerecorded robocalls promoting CBD products, discounts, and marketing offers despite never providing prior express written consent.
The lawsuit alleges that the calls used prerecorded or artificial voice technology rather than live human interaction. Carroll’s filings reportedly emphasize the mechanical nature of the calls, arguing that the prerecorded messaging immediately played after the call connected.
The complaint further alleges that the calls were tied to franchise marketing efforts connected to the Your CBD Store brand and that the campaigns promoted CBD-related products and store offers.
The Legal Claims
Carroll’s lawsuit invokes both federal and Florida consumer-protection statutes.
Under the TCPA, businesses generally cannot place prerecorded telemarketing calls to consumers without obtaining prior express written consent. Violations can carry statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per call depending on whether the conduct is found to be willful or knowing.
The complaint also invokes the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, which provides Florida consumers with additional protections against unwanted telemarketing activity.
Carroll seeks statutory damages as well as treble damages based on allegations that the conduct was intentional or willful.
Why Carroll v. Sunflora Matters
The Sunflora litigation became important because it raises several broader legal and compliance issues affecting modern telemarketing campaigns and franchise operations.
The Post-Facebook v. Duguid TCPA Landscape
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook v. Duguid, many TCPA plaintiffs shifted away from focusing entirely on autodialer technology and instead emphasized prerecorded voice allegations.
Carroll’s case reflects that broader trend. Rather than relying solely on allegations involving automated dialing systems, the lawsuit focuses heavily on prerecorded messaging and telemarketing content.
Franchise Liability Issues
One of the central questions in the case is whether Sunflora, as the parent company behind the franchise network, can be held liable for marketing calls allegedly tied to franchise locations.
The lawsuit raises questions about how much control a parent company exercises over franchise marketing practices, call campaigns, advertising systems, and promotional outreach.
The outcome could carry broader implications for franchise businesses using centralized marketing strategies across multiple locations.
The Opt-Out Process Controversy
The litigation also brought attention to Sunflora’s alleged opt-out procedures and privacy practices.
According to commentary surrounding the case, critics argued that consumers allegedly lacked a simple or immediate method to stop marketing communications. Reports suggested that opting out may have required additional steps, including contacting designated email addresses rather than simply replying “STOP.”
Consumer advocates and legal analysts noted that difficult opt-out systems may create additional compliance concerns under consumer-protection laws.
Arbitration Clauses and Class Action Waivers
Another major issue involves arbitration provisions and class action waivers allegedly contained within Sunflora’s terms and conditions.
The litigation explores whether consumers can still pursue class action relief despite arbitration language that companies increasingly use in customer agreements.
This remains one of the key procedural battlegrounds in the case.
The Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA)
The Florida Telephone Solicitation Act provides Florida consumers with protections similar to, and in some situations broader than, the federal TCPA.
The FTSA allows private lawsuits involving unwanted telemarketing calls, prerecorded voice communications, and other forms of automated solicitation activity.
For plaintiffs like Carroll, the FTSA provides an additional legal pathway even when federal TCPA arguments become more difficult after recent court decisions involving autodialer definitions.
The combination of TCPA and FTSA claims significantly increases potential litigation exposure for businesses operating telemarketing campaigns in Florida.
The Request for Injunctive Relief
Carroll is not only seeking monetary damages. The lawsuit also requests injunctive relief aimed at preventing future robocall activity.
The requested relief reportedly includes orders requiring changes to telemarketing practices, improved compliance procedures, and restrictions on future prerecorded marketing calls.
If the court ultimately certifies a broader class, the potential financial exposure could become significant because statutory damages are calculated on a per-call basis.
Current Status of the Litigation (2026)
As of 2026, the Sunflora litigation remains active.
Some procedural claims and arguments were reportedly dismissed or narrowed during litigation, but the core allegations involving prerecorded robocalls and alleged consent violations continue moving forward.
The case continues focusing on class certification issues, arbitration disputes, franchise liability questions, and alleged violations of both the TCPA and FTSA.
How Carroll Compares to Other TCPA Plaintiffs
Cindy Carroll differs substantially from the controversial serial litigators often discussed within TCPA defense circles.
Unlike plaintiffs accused of using fake names, manufactured consent tactics, or deceptive litigation strategies, Carroll appears associated with a single consumer-focused lawsuit involving alleged unwanted robocalls.
There are no known allegations involving fraud counterclaims, organized litigation activity, or repeated high-volume filing behavior.
That distinction matters because Carroll’s case reflects the type of ordinary consumer complaint that originally motivated passage of the TCPA and related state consumer-protection laws.
What Businesses Should Learn From This Case
The Carroll litigation offers several important lessons for businesses using prerecorded telemarketing campaigns, particularly franchise systems and companies relying on centralized marketing operations.
Companies should ensure they obtain valid written consent before placing prerecorded telemarketing calls. Businesses should also maintain simple, effective opt-out procedures that allow consumers to stop communications quickly and easily.
The case also highlights the importance of reviewing franchise marketing oversight, vendor relationships, privacy disclosures, and arbitration provisions carefully.
Perhaps most importantly, the litigation demonstrates that parent companies may still face liability exposure when franchise marketing systems allegedly violate telemarketing laws.
The Eric Carroll Confusion
Some confusion exists because another unrelated legal matter involves an individual named Eric Carroll.
That separate case concerns privacy and data breach litigation involving Staples and has no connection to Cindy Carroll or the Sunflora TCPA lawsuit.
The two individuals are unrelated.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Cindy Carroll?
Cindy Carroll is a Florida consumer who filed a TCPA and FTSA class action lawsuit against Sunflora, Inc. alleging illegal prerecorded robocalls promoting CBD products.
Is Cindy Carroll a serial litigator?
No. Carroll appears associated with one significant TCPA lawsuit and is not known as a high-volume professional plaintiff.
What is Carroll v. Sunflora about?
The lawsuit alleges that Sunflora used prerecorded robocalls to market CBD products without obtaining proper consumer consent.
What is the FTSA?
The Florida Telephone Solicitation Act is Florida’s state-level robocall and telemarketing protection statute.
What damages are being sought?
Carroll seeks statutory damages and potentially treble damages of up to $1,500 per violation.
Why is the opt-out process controversial?
Critics argued that the alleged opt-out procedures may have made it unnecessarily difficult for consumers to stop receiving telemarketing calls.
Can Sunflora be liable for franchisee calls?
That issue is one of the central legal questions being litigated in the case.
Final Thoughts: A Consumer Plaintiff, Not a Professional Litigator
Cindy Carroll’s lawsuit against Sunflora stands apart from many high-profile TCPA disputes involving serial litigators and professional plaintiffs. There are no allegations of fake identities, engineered calls, deceptive conduct, or mass litigation campaigns.
Instead, the case centers on a Florida consumer who alleges she received unwanted prerecorded robocalls promoting CBD products and pursued remedies available under federal and state consumer-protection laws.
The litigation also highlights growing concerns surrounding franchise marketing oversight, prerecorded advertising campaigns, arbitration clauses, and consumer opt-out rights.
As courts continue evaluating modern telemarketing practices, Carroll v. Sunflora may become an important case shaping how businesses approach TCPA and FTSA compliance within franchise systems and the CBD industry.
Unlike many controversial TCPA litigants discussed in defense-oriented commentary, Cindy Carroll appears to represent the type of ordinary consumer the TCPA was originally designed to protect.
Sources & References
Primary Sources – Cindy Carroll Litigation
https://natlawreview.com/article/sunfloras-cbd-robocall-fiasco-privacy-promises-or-just-blowing-smoke
Carroll v. Sunflora, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-02047 (M.D. Fla. filed August 2024)
Secondary Sources – Legal Commentary
TCPAWorld coverage discussing the Sunflora litigation
National Law Review analysis regarding TCPA and FTSA claims
Additional Context
Carroll v. Staples, Inc. (March 2026, Massachusetts District Court) involving Eric Carroll, unrelated to Cindy Carroll
Docket Information
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flmdce/8:2024cv02047/431640
Disclaimer
This article is based on publicly available court filings, legal commentary, judicial rulings, and media reporting. Unlike some profiles involving high-volume TCPA litigators, Cindy Carroll is not characterized as a professional plaintiff or serial litigator. The allegations discussed remain subject to ongoing litigation and judicial determination. This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
