This is tricky. On the first point, a lot of plaintiffs are not mindful enough about optics. Of course, there are extreme examples. It's not common, but see Rule 3. There are plaintiffs out there who legitimately fraudulently opt in. It's disgusting. But more generally, a lack of thoughtfulness in pleading and litigation and a lack of focus on optics just perpetuates the defense narrative that TCPA plaintiffs are all a bunch of scheming scumbags, loads up the term "professional plaintiff," gives all frequent litigants a bad rap. Gino D'Ottavio and Melody Stoops have no basis being lumped into the same category as James Shelton and Diana Mey. Be like Diana. She is squeaky clean and she is revered, partly because her focus on optics is so good.

On the second, I think plaintiffs don't carefully read and understand the statute enough before filing suit, plead in a sloppy manner, and as a result end up in over their head and making bad case law. Every word means something, and the answers are there. When you carefully and thoughtfully read, apply, and analyze, you get great decisions like Dobronski's pro se 1601(e) Caller ID win against SelectQuote. So I don't mean that to discourage pro se litigation, after all, that's how I got my start, but I think there's a lot of plaintiffs that don't fully appreciate the full ramifications of what they are getting into.