Andrew Perrong: The “Robocall Avenger” Who Evolved from Teenage TCPA Plaintiff to Licensed Attorney
Andrew Roman Perrong possesses one of the most remarkable and unconventional biographies in the history of modern TCPA litigation. He reportedly began filing lawsuits against telemarketers in 2015 while still enrolled in high school. At an age when most individuals are navigating college applications or entering entry-level employment, Perrong was already cultivating a reputation within the world of consumer protection litigation.
Today, Perrong is a licensed Pennsylvania attorney, the founder of Perrong Law LLC, and a committed plaintiff-side advocate focused on Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation. According to his firm, he has participated in class action settlements totaling in excess of $9 million and has managed more than 200 TCPA and consumer protection matters.
Unlike many serial TCPA litigants who remain self-represented pro se plaintiffs throughout their careers, Perrong made the transition from unrepresented litigant into licensed legal practice. His transformation from teenage plaintiff to practicing attorney has elevated him to one of the most widely recognized figures in modern TCPA litigation.
Critics point to earlier judicial criticism of his litigation conduct and his history of aggressive pro se filings. Supporters argue that he has matured into a serious consumer advocate committed to challenging unlawful telemarketing activity. Regardless of perspective, Perrong has firmly established himself as a significant presence in the TCPA industry.
Who Is Andrew Roman Perrong?
Andrew Roman Perrong is a Pennsylvania-licensed attorney operating through Perrong Law LLC, a consumer protection law firm with a heavy emphasis on TCPA litigation, robocall disputes, and telemarketing compliance claims.
Public records identify Perrong as being associated with Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Oregon. He has also managed the plaintiff-focused TCPA publication TCPATalk, which positions itself as a counterbalance to defense-oriented TCPA commentary platforms.
Public records and professional disclosures identify the following details regarding Perrong:
• Full name: Andrew Roman Perrong
• Born: November 1996
• Age: Approximately 29 years old
• Current location associated with public records: Portland, Oregon
• Pennsylvania connections: Glenside, Jenkintown, Huntingdon Valley, and Philadelphia
• Delaware connection: Claymont
• Pennsylvania Bar Admission Number: 333687
• Law Firm: Perrong Law LLC
• Practice focus: TCPA and consumer protection litigation
• Associated websites: perronglaw.com and tcpatalk.com
• Aircraft registration publicly associated with Perrong: Piper PA-28R-200
Unlike many serial litigants who operate quietly through repeated anonymous filings, Perrong openly markets his TCPA litigation work and embraces a highly visible public-facing professional identity.
The Teenage Origins of His TCPA Litigation Career
One of the most distinctive aspects of Perrong’s story is that he reportedly began filing TCPA lawsuits while still attending high school, around 2015.
At that time, Perrong had no legal training and operated entirely as a self-represented pro se litigant. Court records and legal commentary confirm that he quickly became active in robocall and telemarketing litigation despite the absence of any formal legal education.
His legal evolution can be broken into several distinct phases:
• Around 2015, Perrong began filing TCPA lawsuits while still a teenager
• Between 2015 and 2023, he continued filing numerous pro se TCPA cases across multiple jurisdictions
• During his law school years, he reportedly continued participating in active litigation
• On October 10, 2023, Perrong was formally admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar
• Following bar admission, he founded Perrong Law LLC and transitioned into representing consumer plaintiffs professionally
This trajectory is highly unusual because most TCPA plaintiffs either remain ordinary one-time consumers or persistent serial litigants without formal legal credentials. Perrong instead converted accumulated litigation experience into a licensed professional legal career.
The Origin of the “Robocall Avenger” Nickname
Perrong became publicly known as the “Robocall Avenger,” a nickname reportedly originating from media coverage that he subsequently incorporated into his own professional branding.
His law firm and affiliated online platforms openly embrace the image of a committed consumer advocate battling telemarketing abuse at scale.
According to public-facing materials associated with Perrong:
• He began suing telemarketers while still in high school
• He has managed more than 200 TCPA and consumer protection matters
• He participated in class action settlements totaling approximately $9.05 million
• He operates a plaintiff-focused TCPA commentary platform targeting a consumer advocate audience
The “Avenger” brand appears throughout his online presence and has become closely identified with his professional identity throughout the TCPA industry.
Perrong Law LLC
After obtaining his law license, Perrong established Perrong Law LLC, a law practice dedicated primarily to consumer protection and robocall litigation.
The firm’s public-facing materials emphasize:
• TCPA litigation
• Robocall disputes
• Consumer protection claims
• Class action participation
• Telemarketing compliance enforcement
According to published statements from Perrong Law LLC, the firm participated in two class action settlements with combined value exceeding $9 million.
This distinguishes Perrong meaningfully from most serial TCPA litigants because he ultimately became a licensed attorney authorized to represent clients rather than remaining confined to self-representation as a plaintiff.
TCPATalk and the Plaintiff-Side TCPA Media Presence
Perrong also operates TCPATalk, a plaintiff-oriented TCPA commentary and news platform.
TCPATalk is widely regarded within the industry as the plaintiff-side counterpart to TCPAWorld, the defense-oriented TCPA publication managed by prominent defense attorney Eric Troutman.
The relationship between the two platforms reflects the broader ideological and strategic divide within the TCPA industry:
• TCPAWorld generally focuses on defense-side compliance analysis and litigation strategy
• TCPATalk presents plaintiff-focused commentary and consumer advocacy perspectives
Perrong’s public persona as “The Avenger” provides a pointed contrast to Troutman’s well-known “TCPA Czar” brand identity.
Despite representing fundamentally opposing sides of the TCPA industry, Perrong and Troutman have engaged publicly through podcasts and webinars discussing TCPA litigation developments, enforcement trends, and policy debates.
Judicial Criticism and Litigation Conduct
Although Perrong ultimately obtained a law license, several courts and legal commentators criticized aspects of his earlier litigation conduct during the years he operated as a self-represented pro se plaintiff.
Judicial commentary reportedly included statements such as:
“Plaintiff’s behavior is gamesmanship of the lowest order.”
Another judicial comment reportedly characterized Perrong as a:
“Habitual litigant.”
Additional criticism accused Perrong of acting with “petulance rather than professionalism.”
Defense-oriented platforms, including TCPAWorld, have also characterized Perrong as a controversial figure within the broader TCPA litigation community.
Critics argue that certain earlier filings reflected aggressive litigation tactics and procedural maneuvering commonly associated with professional serial litigants.
Supporters counter that vigorous enforcement is a necessary mechanism for holding telemarketers accountable for unlawful robocall campaigns.
The “Proud Litigators” Association
Perrong has at times been grouped alongside other high-volume TCPA litigants occasionally referenced in defense-side commentary as part of the informal “Proud Litigators” network.
Names frequently associated in such commentary include:
• Mark Dobronski
• Brandon Callier
• James Sheldon
• Andrew Perrong
What fundamentally distinguishes Perrong from many others in that grouping is that he enrolled in law school, earned a law license, and now directly represents clients through a licensed law practice.
Podcast Appearances and Industry Visibility
Perrong’s standing within the TCPA industry grew considerably after appearing on Eric Troutman’s “You Deserve to Win” podcast.
Discussions reportedly covered:
• TCPA enforcement trends and regulatory developments
• Plaintiff-side litigation strategy
• Consumer protection law developments
• Robocall litigation updates
Although Perrong and Troutman regularly occupy opposite sides of TCPA disputes, their professional interactions suggest a degree of mutual respect across significant policy and strategic disagreements.
Public Records and Geographic Background
Public records indicate that Perrong has maintained connections to several states and locations over the course of his career.
Geographic connections referenced in available records include:
• Portland, Oregon
• Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania
• Jenkintown, Pennsylvania
• Glenside, Pennsylvania
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Claymont, Delaware
His Oregon connection has attracted some attention within the legal community, potentially suggesting geographic expansion of his professional activities beyond Pennsylvania.
Family Background
Publicly accessible records identify several individuals potentially associated with Perrong through family relationships.
Possible relatives identified in public records include:
• Harold Perrong
• Stefania Perrong
• Mary Perrong
• Staephanie Perrong
Available information suggests Perrong comes from a suburban Pennsylvania family background.
Aircraft Ownership and Financial Attention
One notable detail associated with Perrong is publicly available registration information tied to a Piper PA-28R-200 aircraft.
Private aircraft ownership is relatively uncommon for a young attorney and has occasionally been referenced by legal commentators discussing his litigation success and overall financial position.
No public evidence has been identified suggesting any impropriety specifically related to the aircraft registration.
What Makes Andrew Perrong Different from Other TCPA Litigants?
Several factors meaningfully distinguish Perrong from most high-volume TCPA litigants:
• He obtained a law license and is a practicing attorney
• He founded and operates his own law firm
• He directly represents consumer plaintiffs in federal court
• He openly brands himself as a consumer protection advocate
• He operates a plaintiff-side TCPA publication
• He transitioned from pro se litigation into formal licensed legal practice
• He publicly markets participation in multimillion-dollar class action settlements
The overwhelming majority of serial litigants remain self-represented consumers. Perrong instead transformed his accumulated TCPA litigation experience into a licensed professional legal career.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Andrew Perrong a licensed attorney?
Yes. Andrew Perrong was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar on October 10, 2023.
How many TCPA cases has Perrong handled?
According to Perrong Law LLC, he has handled more than 200 TCPA and consumer protection matters.
What is TCPATalk?
TCPATalk is Perrong’s plaintiff-oriented TCPA commentary website covering robocall litigation and consumer protection developments.
Why is he called the “Robocall Avenger”?
The nickname reportedly emerged from media coverage and was subsequently adopted as a core element of his public branding.
Has Perrong been criticized by judges?
Yes. Several judicial comments criticized aspects of his earlier pro se litigation conduct, including characterizations of gamesmanship and habitual filing behavior.
Did Perrong participate in class action settlements?
According to Perrong Law LLC, he participated in class action settlements totaling approximately $9.05 million.
What makes Perrong different from other serial litigants?
Unlike the vast majority of high-volume TCPA plaintiffs, Perrong became a licensed attorney and now formally represents consumers through a law firm he founded and operates.
Final Thoughts
Andrew Roman Perrong represents one of the most unusual and high-profile stories in the modern history of TCPA litigation.
He began suing telemarketers while still enrolled in high school and eventually transformed himself into a licensed practicing attorney operating a plaintiff-side consumer protection law firm. Along that journey, he earned the nickname “Robocall Avenger,” constructed a substantial public presence within the TCPA industry, and participated in class action settlements worth millions of dollars.
His career continues to generate controversy. Critics point persistently to early judicial criticism and aggressive litigation conduct. Supporters argue that his work has helped consumers mount meaningful challenges to unlawful robocall practices and pressured companies to strengthen their telemarketing compliance programs.
Regardless of where one stands, Perrong has established himself as one of the most recognizable individuals in TCPA litigation. The teenager who began suing telemarketers in 2015 is now a practicing attorney whose influence extends across plaintiff-side TCPA enforcement and consumer protection litigation in significant and lasting ways.
Sources & References
Primary Sources
https://www.perronglaw.com/about
https://www.tcpatalk.com/about
https://www.youdeservetowin.com/topic/guests
Pennsylvania Bar Record — Attorney ID #333687
Secondary Legal Commentary
Public Records References
Public records information referenced in this article includes address history, publicly accessible registration information, possible relatives, and publicly available professional records associated with Andrew Roman Perrong.
Disclaimer
This article is based on publicly available court filings, legal commentary, media reporting, public records databases, and statements published on third-party websites, including Perrong Law LLC and TCPATalk. Information may change over time and some public records may contain inaccuracies or outdated material. Judicial commentary and litigation allegations referenced herein reflect statements made in legal proceedings or public commentary and do not necessarily constitute findings of misconduct. This article is provided solely for informational and educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
