Stanley Hastings: The Serial TCPA Litigator Who Got Caught Using a Fake Name “Marvin Taeese”
Stanley “Stan” Hastings Jr. is a documented serial litigator and professional plaintiff whose TCPA lawsuits eventually backfired in dramatic fashion. Unlike the high volume Texas filers or the “pillaging” octogenarian James Sheldon, Hastings was exposed for using a fake identity called “Marvin Taeese” to trigger telemarketing calls and then sue the businesses that responded to the fabricated persona.
Hastings is not a consumer advocate. He is not someone suffering from widespread telemarketing abuse. He is a serial litigator whose entire litigation model allegedly relied on creating the very “violations” he later sued over by submitting false information online, pretending to seek products or services, and never disclosing his true identity or the fact that his number was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.
Legal commentators, defense firms, and federal courts have openly identified Hastings as an “alleged litigator” who submitted a fake name through online forms. In a landmark 2024 ruling, a federal court permitted the defendant to pursue a fraud counterclaim against Hastings, creating a new avenue for companies to challenge manufactured TCPA lawsuits. The evidence supports a clear conclusion: Hastings is an abusive serial litigator whose own deception became the basis for fraud allegations against him.
Who Is Stanley Hastings Jr.? A Serial Litigator Who Hides Behind Fake Names
Stanley “Stan” Hastings Jr. is a serial TCPA plaintiff connected to multiple lawsuits filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Court records show that Hastings is a professional litigator whose lawsuits revolve around telemarketing calls, lead generation forms, and alleged Do Not Call Registry violations, but with a major distinction: he allegedly manufactures the circumstances leading to those lawsuits by providing false information.
The “Marvin Taeese” persona:
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Real Name | Stanley Hastings Jr. |
| Fake Name Used | “Marvin Taeese” |
| Phone Number | His real cell phone number |
| Address Used | His father’s former business address (not his residence) |
| Purpose | To trigger telemarketing calls and manufacture TCPA lawsuits |
His documented serial filing pattern includes:
- Submitting online forms with fake names (“Marvin Taeese”)
- Using business addresses instead of residential addresses
- Never identifying himself by his real name during telemarketing calls
- Never informing callers that his number is on the National Do Not Call Registry
- Pretending to have interest in products he never intended to purchase
- Suing companies that responded to the fabricated persona
- Accumulating alleged “violations” by remaining on the call
The “Marvin Taeese” Scheme: How Hastings Manufactured Lawsuits
The most damaging evidence involving Stanley Hastings is the “Marvin Taeese” scheme, a deliberate and structured process allegedly designed to manufacture TCPA lawsuits.
The scheme, as alleged by defendants:
| Step | Action | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hastings (or his agent) visits a third party lead generation website | Establish contact |
| 2 | He submits a form using the fake name “Marvin Taeese,” his real phone number, and his father’s former business address | Conceal true identity |
| 3 | He clicks “submit,” agreeing to receive prerecorded calls regarding health insurance quotes | Create “consent” on paper |
| 4 | A third party company calls asking for “Marvin” | Call is placed |
| 5 | Hastings answers to the name “Marvin” without correcting the caller | Continue the deception |
| 6 | He expresses interest in health insurance quotes | Encourage transfer to a deeper pocketed company |
| 7 | The call is transferred to SmartMatch Insurance Agency | Target identified |
| 8 | Hastings sues SmartMatch for TCPA violations | Lawsuit filed |
What Hastings did NOT do:
| Action | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| He never used his real name | Concealed his identity as a serial litigator |
| He never disclosed his presence on the National DNC Registry | Allowed alleged “violations” to accumulate |
| He never stated he did not want future calls | Preserved the appearance of consumer interest |
| He implied the fake name belonged to him | Affirmative deception |
As the court noted, Hastings “answered to the name ‘Marvin’ without correcting the calling agent or advising them that he was not interested in receiving health insurance quotes.”
The Fraud Counterclaim: Hastings v. SmartMatch Insurance Agency, LLC (2022 2026)
The most significant development involving Hastings is the case of Hastings v. SmartMatch Insurance Agency, LLC, which has become a warning sign for professional litigators who attempt to manufacture lawsuits.
The Lawsuit
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Court | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Plaintiff | Stanley Hastings Jr. (suing as “Hastings”) |
| Defendant | SmartMatch Insurance Agency, LLC |
| Allegation | TCPA violations involving telemarketing calls |
SmartMatch Fights Back: Fraud Counterclaim
SmartMatch did more than deny liability. The company filed a fraud counterclaim against Hastings.
SmartMatch’s fraud allegations:
| Allegation | Details |
|---|---|
| False name | Hastings used the fake name “Marvin Taeese” |
| False address | He used his father’s former business address instead of his residence |
| False interest | He pretended to seek health insurance quotes |
| Reliance | SmartMatch relied on the false information to purchase the lead and take the call |
| Damages | SmartMatch suffered harm to its goodwill, reputation, and incurred defense costs |
The legal theory:
Hastings allegedly provided false information to cause companies to spend money on leads from someone who had no genuine interest in buying insurance. By pretending to be “Marvin Taeese” and acting interested in health insurance, Hastings allegedly committed fraud.
The Court’s Ruling (March 2024)
In March 2024, the court took the unusual step of allowing the fraud counterclaim to move forward.
Key quote from the ruling (Hastings v. Callcore, 2024 WL 943952):
“After careful review of the allegations of the complaint, the Court concludes that Assure has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for fraud.”
The court concluded that the fraud allegations satisfied the required legal standards:
| Element | Court’s Finding |
|---|---|
| False representation of material fact | Hastings used the false name “Marvin Taeese” when consenting to receive calls |
| Knowledge of falsity | Hastings knew he was not “Marvin Taeese” |
| Intent to induce reliance | He intended companies to rely on the false information |
| Justifiable reliance | Assure/SmartMatch relied on the information to purchase the lead |
| Damages | Assure paid for the lead and incurred defense costs |
The court additionally noted that the fake name and business address qualified as sufficient “material misrepresentations” to keep the fraud claim alive.
The “Agent” Theory
Hastings attempted to argue that even if false information had been submitted through a form, it may not have been him personally who did it. He suggested that an “agent” could have submitted the form instead.
The court’s response:
The court allowed discovery to continue so the parties could determine whether Hastings or an “agent” intentionally baited companies into making calls for purposes of litigation. This creates the possibility that discovery could expose direct involvement or reveal an organized network of individuals assisting him.
The Fraud Standard: What Companies Need to Prove
The Hastings case demonstrates how companies can respond to manufactured TCPA lawsuits. To prevail on a fraud counterclaim, defendants generally must prove five elements under Arkansas law.
| Element | Description | How It Applied to Hastings |
|---|---|---|
| 1. False representation of material fact | A lie about something important | “Marvin Taeese” (fake name) |
| 2. Knowledge of falsity | The person knew the statement was false | Hastings knew he was not “Marvin” |
| 3. Intent to induce reliance | Wanted someone to rely on the lie | He wanted calls so he could sue |
| 4. Justifiable reliance | Someone actually believed the lie | SmartMatch believed “Marvin” was interested |
| 5. Damages | Harm resulted from the reliance | Defense costs, lead costs, reputational harm |
The key takeaway:
If a plaintiff provides false information to generate telemarketing calls, including fake names or addresses, companies may pursue fraud claims against that plaintiff.
The Callcore Case: Another Fraud Counterclaim (2024)
In Hastings v. Callcore (2024 WL 943952), the defendant again responded with a fraud counterclaim and again survived dismissal.
The allegations in Callcore:
| Element | Allegation |
|---|---|
| When | December 3, 2019 at 9:52 EST (website submission); March 8, 2021 at 9:24 EST (verbal consent) |
| Where | Specific website identified in the counterclaim |
| Who | Hastings, using the name “Marvin Taeese” |
| What | Fake name and false interest in health insurance quotes |
| How | Clicked “submit” consenting to prerecorded calls and verbally consented again on March 8 |
The court’s conclusion:
“In sum, the counterclaim alleges that Hastings made knowingly false statements of fact regarding his name and his interest in receiving insurance telemarketing calls for the purpose of inducing reliance on these statements.”
“These allegations are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b).”
The Current Status (2026)
As of 2026, the Hastings cases are progressing toward summary judgment, with the fraud counterclaims still active.
| Case | Status | Key Development |
|---|---|---|
| Hastings v. SmartMatch | Moving toward summary judgment | Judge Lee P. Rudofsky allowed fraud counterclaim to proceed; the alias “Marvin Taeese” and business address were ruled “material misrepresentations” |
| Hastings v. Callcore | Fraud counterclaim survived dismissal | Court found sufficient allegations of fraud |
The bottom line:
Hastings now faces the possibility of a fraud judgment against him, meaning he could potentially owe money to the very businesses he originally sued.
Why the Hastings Case Matters for 2026 TCPA Litigation
The Hastings litigation has significantly changed the landscape for serial litigators and the businesses they target.
1. Fraud Counterclaims Are Now a Viable Defense
| Before Hastings | After Hastings |
|---|---|
| Companies rarely filed fraud counterclaims | Courts now permit fraud counterclaims against serial litigators |
| Plaintiffs had little risk | Plaintiffs now risk fraud judgments |
| Fake names were treated as a “clever tactic” | Fake names are now evidence supporting fraud claims |
2. The “Agent” Theory Creates Discovery Exposure
Hastings argued that an “agent” may have submitted the forms. That argument now allows defendants to investigate:
- Who else may be working with Hastings
- Whether there is an organized network of “agents”
- How the online forms were actually submitted
3. Companies Can Now Seek Indemnity from Plaintiffs
If a lead buyer faces litigation over a call induced by fraudulent conduct, the buyer may be able to recover defense costs and damages from the plaintiff responsible for the fraud.
4. The Narrative Has Shifted
As TCPAWorld observed, the Hastings litigation transformed the narrative from “harassed consumer” to “active litigation engineer.” Hastings is portrayed not as a victim but as the architect of the lawsuits.
The Paul Hastings LLP Confusion (Not Related)
It is important to distinguish Paul Hastings LLP from Stanley Hastings Jr. The two are completely unrelated.
| Entity | Role |
|---|---|
| Stanley Hastings Jr. | Serial TCPA plaintiff (“Marvin Taeese”) |
| Paul Hastings LLP | Global corporate defense law firm |
The two should not be confused.
What Companies Should Learn From the Hastings Case
For businesses selling products online or purchasing leads in 2026, the Hastings litigation provides several important lessons.
| Lesson | Application |
|---|---|
| 1. Verify identities carefully | Someone claiming interest may not be who they say they are. “Marvin Taeese” is a prime example. |
| 2. Fight back | Businesses can pursue fraud counterclaims against serial litigators |
| 3. Seek indemnity | Companies that purchase fraudulent leads may recover losses from the person who submitted the false information |
The Hastings litigation is now frequently cited in 2026 as a reason why more companies are filing fraud counterclaims against serial plaintiffs.
How Hastings Compares to Other Serial Litigators
| Comparison | Stanley Hastings | James Sheldon | Anton Ewing | Ken Johansen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fake name used | YES (“Marvin Taeese”) | No | No | No |
| Fraud counterclaim | YES, survived dismissal | No (RICO claims dismissed) | No | No (but admitted deception) |
| “Agent” theory | YES, claimed agent may have submitted form | No | No | No |
| Used business address | YES (father’s former business) | No (debt collection business line) | No | No |
| Judicial finding of fraud sufficiency | YES (court allowed fraud claim to proceed) | No (but “pillaging” tape) | No (stalking conviction) | Yes (admitted deception) |
What makes Hastings unique:
He is the only serial litigator in this series who has been explicitly accused of common law fraud and allowed to be sued over the use of a fake name and false address. The court specifically ruled that “Marvin Taeese” and the business address were sufficient “material misrepresentations” to keep the fraud claim alive.
Summary Table: Hastings’ Legal Standing
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Primary Court | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Fake Name Used | “Marvin Taeese” |
| Real Name | Stanley Hastings Jr. |
| Target Industry | Insurance (health insurance quotes) |
| Key Tactic | Submitting forms with fake name, pretending interest, never correcting callers |
| Defense Response | Fraud counterclaims (survived dismissal) |
| Key Ruling | Hastings v. Callcore (2024), fraud counterclaim sufficiently pleaded |
| Current Status | Moving toward summary judgment (2026) |
| Notable Precedent | Plaintiffs can be sued for fraud for using fake names on lead forms |
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Stanley Hastings Jr.?
Stanley “Stan” Hastings Jr. is a serial TCPA litigator who used the fake name “Marvin Taeese” on online forms to induce telemarketing calls and later sue the businesses that responded.
What did Hastings do?
He submitted online forms using the fake name “Marvin Taeese” and his father’s former business address. When telemarketers called asking for “Marvin,” he answered to that name, pretended to seek health insurance, and never disclosed his true identity or the fact that his number was on the Do Not Call Registry. He then filed lawsuits.
What is the “Marvin Taeese” scheme?
A deliberate multi step process: (1) submit fake information on a form; (2) receive a call; (3) answer to the fake name; (4) pretend interest; (5) get transferred; (6) sue the company handling the transfer.
Was Hastings sued for fraud?
Yes. In both Hastings v. SmartMatch and Hastings v. Callcore, defendants filed fraud counterclaims against him, and the courts allowed those claims to proceed.
What did the court say about the fraud claim?
The court ruled that the use of the false name “Marvin Taeese” and a business address constituted sufficient “material misrepresentations” to support a fraud claim. The court also emphasized that Hastings answered to the name “Marvin” without correcting the caller.
What is the “agent” theory?
Hastings argued that an “agent” may have submitted the false form rather than him personally. The court allowed discovery to determine whether Hastings or his alleged agent intentionally baited the calls.
Why does the Hastings case matter for 2026?
It is now frequently cited as a major reason companies increasingly file fraud counterclaims against serial plaintiffs. The case shifted the narrative from “harassed consumer” to “active litigation engineer.”
Can companies now fight back?
Yes. The Hastings litigation demonstrates that if a plaintiff uses fake names or false addresses to induce calls, defendants can pursue fraud counterclaims and potentially recover defense costs and damages.
Is Stanley Hastings related to Paul Hastings LLP?
No. Paul Hastings LLP is a global corporate defense law firm that has no connection to Stanley Hastings Jr.
Is Hastings helping consumers?
No. He is exploiting consumer protection laws for personal gain by allegedly manufacturing the very “violations” he later sues over. His use of the fake name “Marvin Taeese” and his father’s business address demonstrates deliberate deception rather than legitimate consumer advocacy.
Final Thoughts: The Serial Litigator Who Became the Defendant
Stanley “Stan” Hastings Jr. is not a consumer advocate. He is not a privacy crusader. He is a documented serial litigator who used the fake identity “Marvin Taeese” to manufacture TCPA lawsuits and was ultimately exposed.
His strategy was sophisticated but allegedly fraudulent: submit a fake name, pretend to be interested, allow the calls to continue, then file lawsuits. But when SmartMatch and Callcore responded with fraud counterclaims, the courts agreed that Hastings’ conduct could support actionable fraud claims.
The “Marvin Taeese” litigation now stands as a landmark development: a federal court expressly allowing a fraud counterclaim against a TCPA plaintiff who used a fake name and false address. That ruling has reshaped the litigation landscape for serial litigators nationwide.
As courts and lawmakers increasingly scrutinize professional plaintiff abuse, the Hastings litigation will remain a primary example of why businesses are beginning to fight back and why plaintiffs using false identities may face fraud liability themselves.
“Marvin Taeese” is not a real person. Stanley Hastings Jr. is. And now he is the one facing fraud allegations.
Sources & References
Primary Sources: Stanley Hastings (Litigation)
https://tcpaworld.com/2022/09/06/hastings-v-smartmatch-potential-tcpa-violation-indemnity-through-fraud-claims/
https://tcpaworld.com/2024/03/06/counter-attack-alleged-litigator-that-supplied-fake-name-on-form-f/
Hastings v. SmartMatch Insurance Agency, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00228 (E.D. Ark.)
Hastings v. Callcore, 2024 WL 943952 (E.D. Ark. March 5, 2024)
Secondary Sources: Legal Commentary
https://www.paulhastings.com/practice-areas
Case Citations
Hastings v. SmartMatch, 2022 WL 4002625 (E.D. Ark. 09/01/2022)
Hastings v. Callcore, 2024 WL 943952 (E.D. Ark. March 5, 2024)
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Davis, 347 Ark. 566, 66 S.W.3d 568 (2002) (Arkansas fraud standard)
Disclaimer
This article presents allegations and characterizations based on publicly available court filings, legal commentary, media reporting, and judicial rulings. The characterization of Stanley Hastings Jr. as a “serial litigator,” “professional plaintiff,” and “alleged litigator” is supported by the documented evidence cited herein, including judicial findings that the fraud counterclaims against him were sufficiently pleaded. This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
