Claims are closed. The deadline was April 25, 2025, the court granted final approval on July 10, 2025, and the official administrator says checks and PayPal or Venmo payments were sent to approved claimants on September 10, 2025. No new claims are accepted. A person with an issue involving a timely approved claim should use the official site rather than file again.
StatusPayments Completed September 10, 2025
Claim DeadlineApril 25, 2025 — Passed
Settlement Fund$3.495 Million
Final PayoutMore Than $146 per Approved Claim
The lawsuit alleged that United HealthCare Services, Inc. used an artificial or prerecorded voice to place calls about the Optum HouseCalls program to cellular numbers used by people who were not the relevant UnitedHealthcare plan member or someone authorized to act for that member. Plaintiffs asserted that the calls violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, commonly called the TCPA.
United denied wrongdoing and liability. It agreed to create a $3.495 million non-reversionary settlement fund to resolve the disputed class claims without further litigation. The court’s approval did not amount to a trial finding that every call violated the TCPA.
The settlement class covered people and entities throughout the United States to whom United placed an Optum HouseCalls call related to a UnitedHealthcare plan, where the call went to a cellular number customarily used by someone who was not the plan member or holder and was not authorized to represent that member. The call also had to use an artificial or prerecorded voice.
The relevant call period ran from October 12, 2019 through February 10, 2025. The class definition was narrower than all UnitedHealthcare customers and narrower than everyone who ever received a healthcare call. Eligibility depended on the number called, the subject of the call, the recipient’s relationship to the plan, and the technology used.
A class member had to submit a valid claim online or by mail by April 25, 2025. The form asked for the cellular number that received the qualifying call so the administrator could compare the filing with the settlement records. Under OCA’s proof standard, that identifying number and record match made this a proof-required settlement even though the benefit was not based on a purchase receipt.
The same April 25 date applied to exclusions and objections. A person who did nothing received no share of the fund but remained bound by the release if included in the class. Those options are now historical.
The fund paid approved class claims after deductions for court-approved administration, attorney fees, and litigation expenses. The notice originally estimated that each approved claimant could receive about $50 to $125, but the actual amount depended on the final number of valid claims and the net money available.
At final approval, the court reported a per-claimant recovery of more than $146. That figure superseded the earlier estimate and illustrates why an estimated range should not be presented as the final check amount. Each approved claimant received an equal share under the agreement, subject to the administrator’s validation and the terms of the final order.
The court held its final fairness hearing on July 10, 2025 and entered the final approval order and judgment that day. The order finally certified the settlement class, found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate, approved the distribution framework, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The court also approved $1.165 million in attorney fees and $37,620.09 in litigation costs from the fund. It noted that no class member filed an objection and no valid, timely exclusion request was made. The order stated that it was not an admission by United of liability or wrongdoing.
The official FAQ says settlement checks were mailed to approved claimants on September 10, 2025. Claimants who selected PayPal or Venmo were sent their digital payment on the same date. The important-dates page likewise records September 10 as the date settlement payments were sent.
Checks were subject to the validity period stated in the final order. A claimant who did not cash a check or complete a digital transfer should not assume the original award remains available indefinitely. Any reissue question must go through the administrator’s current official process; OCA cannot reissue or redirect a benefit.
No. The claim period ended in April 2025 and the approved distribution was sent in September 2025. Receiving a similar call today does not reopen this settlement, and a person who did not file by the deadline cannot obtain a share through this page.
A timely claimant with a delivery question should keep the claim confirmation, any payment email, and the phone-number record associated with the filing. Use the administrator’s official website independently instead of giving personal or payment information to an unsolicited message.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act restricts certain calls made with artificial or prerecorded voices and other automated communications. Consent, the type of number called, the content and purpose of the communication, and other facts can matter. The statute permits damages in qualifying cases, but the availability of statutory damages in litigation did not mean each class claimant would receive the maximum statutory amount.
This settlement resolved a defined group of Optum HouseCalls calls. It did not decide the legality of every UnitedHealthcare outreach call, and it does not provide a claim process for unrelated texts, calls from other companies, or communications outside the class period.
The TCPA can authorize $500 per violation and up to $1,500 for certain willful violations, while consent can be a complete defense. Class settlements reflect litigation risk, disputed defenses, the number of potential claims, and the practical cost and delay of trial. Here the parties agreed to a common fund rather than litigating liability and damages call by call.
The final approved recovery of more than $146 per claimant was therefore a settlement allocation, not a judicial determination of statutory damages for each call. Class members who did not exclude themselves released the covered claims described in the agreement.
Review the latest information on the official Optum HouseCalls TCPA settlement website website.
Case
Johnson v. United HealthCare Services, Inc.
Case Number
5:23-cv-00522-GAP-PRL
Court
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
Call Period
October 12, 2019–February 10, 2025
Settlement Fund
$3,495,000
Final Approval
July 10, 2025
Payments Sent
September 10, 2025
For more class actions, recalls, and refunds, keep scrolling below.