People who got prerecorded “Aetna Better Health” voice messages on their cell phones since October 2022 may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Aetna, Inc. placed prerecorded telemarketing calls without the called person’s prior express written consent. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Aetna, Inc. has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Aetna, Inc. is facing a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois over prerecorded calls to cell phones. The case, Smith v. Aetna, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-12330, was filed October 7, 2026 by the firms Del Castillo Law Group and Paronich Law. It is not a settlement: there is no fund, no administrator, no claim form and no deadline.The named plaintiff, an Illinois resident, alleges that Aetna made at least one prerecorded telemarketing call to his cell phone on March 17, 2025, without his consent, and that it made similar calls to other people’s cell phones. The complaint claims those calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Aetna has not yet responded in court, and none of the allegations has been proven.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What the Complaint Says the Call Said
According to the complaint, the call left a prerecorded message that began “Hello, this is Aetna Better Health calling for” a named person — someone with the same first name as the named plaintiff but a different surname. The message said the caller needed to gather some important information so the listener could get the most out of their health benefits, and it asked for a return call to a toll-free number available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.The complaint gives two reasons for calling it a robocall: the voice sounded robotic, and the message played with several pauses. It alleges that the number called is assigned to a cellular service, that the named plaintiff never consented to telemarketing calls from Aetna and never asked Aetna for information, and that he and the other people called were harmed by the unwanted calls. The complaint describes one call to the named plaintiff. It does not say how many calls went to other people, but it estimates the proposed class at least in the thousands.
The defendant named in the case is Aetna, Inc., which the complaint describes as a Connecticut corporation. The message identified the caller as Aetna Better Health, and the complaint attributes the calls to Aetna “or an agent calling on behalf of” Aetna. No other company is named as a defendant.
The TCPA Rule the Complaint Relies On
The TCPA bars calls made with an artificial or prerecorded voice to a cell phone number unless the call is made for emergency purposes or with the prior express consent of the person called (47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)). A Federal Communications Commission rule, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2), sets a higher bar for prerecorded calls that include an advertisement or constitute telemarketing: those require the called party’s prior express written consent, meaning a signed written agreement that authorizes the seller to deliver such calls to a specific number. The rule defines telemarketing as a call made to encourage the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods or services.The complaint relies on the stricter standard. It characterizes the call as telemarketing, and its single count alleges the calls were made “en masse” without prior express written consent. The TCPA explainer covers the statute’s other rules on calls and texts.
Aetna has not filed a response, so its position is not yet on the record. The message quoted in the complaint refers to the listener’s health benefits and asks for information; it does not name a product or a price. The same FCC rule draws lines that are likely to matter. A prerecorded call to a cell phone that is not telemarketing needs prior express consent rather than written consent, and the written-consent requirement does not apply to a call that delivers a “health care” message made by or on behalf of a “covered entity” or its “business associate” as defined in the federal HIPAA privacy rule. Whether the call was telemarketing, and which consent standard applies, are questions for the court.
Who Is in the Proposed Class?
The complaint proposes one nationwide class, which it calls the TCPA Pre-recorded Class: everyone in the United States whom Aetna, or an agent calling on Aetna’s behalf, called on a cell phone number using the same or a substantially similar artificial or prerecorded voice message as the one used to call the named plaintiff, from four years before the case was filed through class certification. Excluded are the lawyers in the case, Aetna and entities it controls, its agents and employees, and any judge assigned to the case along with the judge’s staff and immediate family.The complaint says class members can be identified through phone records and phone number databases. A court would have to certify the class before anyone is formally part of the case.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The statute lets a person sue for actual losses or $500 for each violation, whichever is greater, and lets a court increase the award to as much as three times that amount if it finds the violation was willful or knowing (47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)). The complaint pleads that the named plaintiff and each class member are entitled to $500 and up to $1,500 per violation, and alleges, on information and belief, that Aetna was at least reckless in sending prerecorded messages without the required consent.The complaint asks the court to certify the class, appoint the named plaintiff as class representative and his lawyers as class counsel, declare that the conduct violates the TCPA, and award damages as allowed by law, along with any other relief the court considers proper. It also demands a jury trial. These are requests; no court has awarded anything.
What Happens Next
The case is assigned to Judge Georgia N. Alexakis, with Magistrate Judge Jeannice W. Appenteng designated. The court has set an initial status hearing for December 16, 2026, and directed the parties to file a joint initial status report by December 8, 2026.Aetna must be served with the complaint and given time to respond, which can take the form of an answer or a motion to dismiss. Whether a class is certified is a separate, later question. If the case ever produces a class settlement, a court-approved notice would describe who qualifies and how any claims would be handled. Other robocall and text-message cases, including prerecorded-call settlements still accepting claims, are listed on the TCPA class actions page.
Do I Need to Do Anything Right Now?
There is nothing to file. At the complaint stage there is no claim form, settlement website or deadline, and people who fit the proposed class definition are not required to take any step for the case to move forward. If a class is certified or a settlement is reached, the court would approve a notice explaining who is covered and what options, if any, are available.Questions
Is there an Aetna robocall class action?
A proposed class action against Aetna, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-12330, was filed on October 7, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It is at the complaint stage. No class has been certified, there is no settlement, and there is nothing to claim.
What did the Aetna robocall say, according to the complaint?
The complaint quotes a prerecorded message that identifies the caller as Aetna Better Health, says it needs to gather some important information so the listener can get the most out of their health benefits, and asks for a call back to a toll-free number. The complaint says the message reached the named plaintiff’s cell phone on March 17, 2025, and was addressed to a person with a different surname.
Who is in the proposed Aetna class?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of people whom Aetna, or an agent calling on its behalf, called on a cell phone using the same or a substantially similar prerecorded voice message as the one used to call the named plaintiff, from four years before the case was filed through class certification. A court has not certified the class.
How much money does the Aetna TCPA lawsuit seek?
The TCPA provides $500 in statutory damages per violation, and a court may increase that to as much as three times the amount if it finds a violation was willful or knowing. The complaint pleads $500 and up to $1,500 per violation for each class member. Those are requests, not amounts anyone has been awarded.
Is there anything to file in the Aetna robocall case?
Nothing can be filed at this stage because there is no settlement, claim form or deadline. People who fit the proposed class definition are not required to take any step for the case to proceed. If a class is certified or the case settles, a court-approved notice would explain who is covered and any options and deadlines.
Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Smith v. Aetna, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-12330 (N.D. Ill., filed October 7, 2026): complaint (PDF) and docket.• Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and § 227(b)(3).
• FCC telemarketing and prerecorded-call rules: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.
