Mark Dobronski and Rocket Mortgage: When an Online Lead Becomes the Arbitration Battleground

What began as another TCPA lawsuit involving alleged unwanted calls has developed into a much narrower and potentially decisive dispute between Mark Dobronski and Rocket Mortgage, LLC.

The central issue is not simply whether Rocket Mortgage contacted Dobronski.

Instead, the case now turns on whether Dobronski actually submitted an online mortgage inquiry that Rocket says contained an agreement requiring TCPA claims to be resolved through arbitration.

Rocket Mortgage says its records establish that an online lead was submitted using Dobronski’s telephone number.

Dobronski disputes that account.

He says he never submitted the lead, never authorized anyone to submit it for him, and did not enter into the alleged arbitration agreement.

That factual disagreement has prevented the court from simply sending the case to arbitration.

The dispute is Dobronski v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, No. 25-12798, 2026 WL 2296669 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 2026), which was discussed by TCPAWorld in its August 11, 2026 report.

How the TCPA Dispute Started

According to the TCPAWorld report, Dobronski alleged that Rocket-related calls began arriving on his cellular telephone in August 2025.

He claimed that approximately 20 calls were placed between August 11 and August 19, 2025, with the same number allegedly calling repeatedly.

According to Dobronski’s account, the calls generally rang once and disconnected.

He eventually called the number back.

The call allegedly reached an automated interactive voice response system identifying Rocket. Dobronski selected the appropriate option and was connected to an individual identified as Blake.

Dobronski says Blake told him Rocket was attempting to reach him about refinancing.

Dobronski allegedly responded that his number was on the Do Not Call Registry, that he was not interested, and that Rocket should stop contacting him.

He nevertheless alleges that another call arrived in September, followed by a text message from a Rocket loan officer.

Those alleged communications formed the foundation of the Rocket Mortgage TCPA lawsuit.

But Rocket Mortgage had a different explanation for the calls.

Rocket’s Explanation: An Online Mortgage Inquiry

Rocket Mortgage relied on its internal records and submitted a declaration from a Principal Data Analyst.

According to the evidence described by TCPAWorld, an individual visited a Rocket website around August 11, 2025 and submitted a mortgage inquiry.

The submission was reportedly associated with IP address 173.167.231.105.

The information allegedly included:

• The name “Test Testing”
• Dobronski’s telephone number
• A Michigan property
• A purchase-loan inquiry
• A requested loan amount of $250,000
• A click on “Confirm & continue”

From Rocket Mortgage’s perspective, those records provided a reason for the subsequent communications.

The lead also potentially provided Rocket with something much more significant than evidence of consumer interest.

It allegedly provided the basis for an arbitration agreement.

The Arbitration Clause at the Center of the Case

According to the TCPAWorld report, the disclosure immediately above the “Confirm & continue” button stated that clicking the button meant the user agreed to the website’s Terms of Use.

Those Terms allegedly included an agreement to arbitrate TCPA claims.

The disclosure reportedly also addressed marketing consent, including authorization for calls and text messages even when a telephone number appeared on a do-not-call list.

The Terms allegedly covered TCPA and related state-law claims and were governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.

If Dobronski had actually completed the transaction, Rocket Mortgage would have a straightforward argument:

He submitted the form, accepted the Terms, and agreed to arbitration.

But Dobronski’s position makes the issue considerably more complicated.

He says he never completed the form.

Dobronski’s Sworn Denial

Dobronski responded with a sworn declaration disputing Rocket Mortgage’s evidence.

According to TCPAWorld, he denied submitting the mortgage inquiry himself.

He also denied having another person submit it on his behalf.

His declaration reportedly denied:

• Using the disputed IP address
• Using the name “Test Testing”
• Maintaining an Ann Arbor residence
• Having Comcast internet service

Dobronski also challenged Rocket’s IP-address evidence.

He reportedly identified public information associating the disputed IP address with a Comcast connection at the Humane Society in Ann Arbor.

Dobronski maintained that he had no residence in Ann Arbor and no Comcast service.

The result was a direct evidentiary conflict.

Rocket had its business records.

Dobronski had sworn testimony denying that he was responsible for the online transaction.

A Second Inquiry Complicates the Picture

Rocket Mortgage also relied on another lead dated September 29, 2025.

According to the TCPAWorld report, that inquiry allegedly contained the same name, telephone number, and state, although it was associated with another IP address.

Rocket’s analyst reportedly concluded that its systems connected the two submissions to the same individual.

That evidence strengthened Rocket’s position that the online activity was connected to Dobronski.

But it did not automatically resolve the underlying question.

The issue remained whether Rocket could establish that Dobronski himself, or someone authorized to act for him, actually submitted the forms.

Why the Court Would Not Simply Compel Arbitration

The key legal issue became formation of the arbitration agreement.

Rocket Mortgage wanted the TCPA dispute sent to arbitration.

Dobronski’s position was that there was no agreement because he never submitted the online form.

That distinction is crucial.

The existence of an arbitration clause on a website is one question.

Whether the plaintiff actually agreed to that clause is another.

Magistrate Judge Altman treated Dobronski’s sworn declaration as competent evidence and found a factual dispute concerning whether an agreement had been formed.

The magistrate judge therefore recommended denying Rocket’s motion to compel arbitration without prejudice.

In other words, Rocket Mortgage had not yet established that Dobronski actually entered into the agreement it wanted to enforce.

The Federal Arbitration Act Becomes Central

Rocket Mortgage objected to the proposed handling of the issue.

Judge F. Kay Behm sustained Rocket’s objection and determined that the court needed to resolve the contract-formation question first.

The analysis involved Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which addresses situations where the making of an arbitration agreement is disputed.

The TCPAWorld report discusses Sixth Circuit decisions including Southard v. Newcomb Oil Co. and Boykin v. Family Dollar Stores of Michigan, LLC.

The principle is important for the Rocket Mortgage arbitration dispute.

The court cannot simply assume that an arbitration agreement exists because the defendant has produced Terms containing an arbitration provision.

Where the plaintiff disputes entering into the agreement, the formation issue has to be addressed.

The Case Is Now Focused on a Narrow Question

The court’s ruling effectively narrowed the immediate dispute.

Rocket Mortgage’s motion to compel arbitration was denied without prejudice.

The first motion to dismiss was denied as moot.

The second motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice.

Other objections were also overruled without prejudice.

The case was placed in abeyance while targeted discovery proceeds.

The parties are being directed toward a summary trial concerning the formation of the alleged arbitration agreement.

That leaves one question at the center of the case:

Did Mark Dobronski actually submit the Rocket Mortgage online lead?

The Importance of the IP Address

The disputed IP address is one of the more significant pieces of evidence discussed in the case.

Rocket Mortgage uses the IP address to support its online-lead evidence.

Dobronski disputes what the IP address proves.

That distinction matters because an IP address generally identifies a network connection. It does not necessarily establish the identity of the individual who used the connection.

TCPAWorld characterizes IP geolocation as “soft evidence” and highlights the importance of preserving additional technical information when online leads are later used to establish consent or contractual relationships.

In this case, that additional evidence could become critical.

What Evidence Could Resolve the Dispute?

The dispute demonstrates why online lead records may need to contain more than a name and telephone number.

Potentially useful evidence can include:

• Device fingerprints
• Session recordings
• TrustedForm certificates
• Jornaya records
• Precise timestamps
• Browser information
• Device information
• Other technical records linking a user to the submission

The difference is significant.

A database may show that a telephone number was entered into a form.

The stronger question is:

Can the defendant demonstrate who actually entered it?

That distinction becomes even more important when the same online action allegedly created an arbitration agreement.

Dobronski’s Sworn Statement Created a Genuine Issue

Dobronski’s sworn denial does not necessarily mean he will ultimately prevail.

It does, however, explain why the court could not simply accept Rocket Mortgage’s lead record as conclusive proof of agreement.

TCPAWorld references Bazemore v. Papa John’s USA, Inc., 74 F.4th 795 (6th Cir. 2023) in discussing sworn testimony disputing contract formation.

The broader lesson is straightforward.

When a plaintiff competently swears that they never entered into an alleged online agreement, the defendant may need additional evidence establishing that the transaction actually occurred.

That is particularly important where the agreement is being used to force the plaintiff out of federal court and into arbitration.

Discovery Is Also Part of the Fight

The parties have also disagreed over discovery.

According to TCPAWorld, Dobronski sought to restrict Rocket Mortgage’s discovery into his online activity while seeking broader discovery from Rocket.

The court rejected that approach and addressed procedural concerns involving the Rule 26(f) conference and arguments that had not been properly presented.

The parties were directed to confer in good faith and attempt to resolve ordinary discovery issues before bringing them to the court.

That instruction becomes especially important because the court has narrowed the immediate focus to whether the alleged arbitration agreement was actually formed.

Rocket Mortgage Has Not Lost the Arbitration Issue Permanently

It would be misleading to describe the court’s ruling as a final rejection of Rocket Mortgage’s arbitration argument.

The motion to compel arbitration was denied without prejudice.

Rocket therefore retains the opportunity to develop additional evidence.

If the company can establish that Dobronski submitted the form, or that an authorized person did so on his behalf, the alleged arbitration agreement could potentially become enforceable.

The arbitration issue therefore remains very much alive.

The question is whether Rocket Mortgage can produce enough evidence to establish formation.

What the Case Means for Online Lead Defendants

The dispute offers several lessons for companies defending TCPA online lead cases.

1. Keep the Complete Digital Record

A basic lead record may not be sufficient if the consumer later denies submitting it.

2. Preserve Evidence Connecting the User to the Lead

Device and session information can potentially provide stronger evidence than an IP address alone.

3. Preserve the Exact Form and Terms

If consent or arbitration depends on the language displayed before a consumer clicks a button, preserving that exact language can become essential.

4. Do Not Confuse a Lead With Proof of Agreement

The existence of a lead does not automatically establish who created it or whether that individual agreed to arbitration.

5. Address Formation Before Enforcement

A defendant seeking arbitration may first need to prove that the alleged agreement actually exists between the parties.

What TCPA Plaintiffs Can Take From the Case

The dispute also demonstrates why online arbitration challenges can become highly fact-specific.

A plaintiff disputing an alleged lead may need to provide competent evidence supporting the denial.

At the same time, defendants may have extensive technical records that could contradict the denial.

That evidence can include lead records, IP information, device data, timestamps, session records, and consent documentation.

Ultimately, the court has to determine which evidence establishes what actually happened.

The Larger Importance of Dobronski v. Rocket Mortgage

The case raises a broader issue affecting modern TCPA litigation.

Online lead forms are increasingly used to document consumer inquiries, consent, marketing authorization, and contractual terms.

They can also contain arbitration provisions.

But digital records can raise a fundamental question:

Who actually completed the transaction?

That question can be easy to overlook when a company possesses a database record showing a telephone number and other identifying information.

The Dobronski v. Rocket Mortgage dispute shows why that assumption can become problematic when the consumer expressly denies participating in the transaction.

From an Online Form to a Federal Court Dispute

The entire dispute can ultimately be reduced to a chain of questions.

Did someone visit the Rocket Mortgage website?

Did someone submit the mortgage inquiry?

Was Dobronski’s telephone number used?

Did Dobronski submit the information himself?

Did someone acting on his behalf submit it?

Did the person who submitted it see and accept the Terms?

And did that transaction create a binding TCPA arbitration agreement?

Rocket Mortgage says the evidence supports its position.

Dobronski disputes the connection.

The court has therefore required the parties to address the formation issue before the case can proceed further.

Final Takeaway

The Mark Dobronski Rocket Mortgage dispute is ultimately about whether an online record can establish a contractual relationship when the alleged consumer says he never created the record.

Dobronski alleges that Rocket Mortgage made repeated calls and later sent a text message to his cell phone.

Rocket Mortgage points to an online mortgage inquiry that allegedly used Dobronski’s telephone number and contained terms providing for arbitration.

Dobronski denies submitting that inquiry.

His sworn declaration created a factual dispute over whether the alleged Rocket Mortgage arbitration agreement was ever formed.

The court therefore did not immediately compel arbitration. Instead, the litigation has moved into targeted discovery focused on the formation question.

For defendants, the case demonstrates the importance of preserving detailed digital evidence rather than relying solely on a basic lead record.

For plaintiffs, it demonstrates that challenging an online arbitration agreement can turn on evidence showing whether the plaintiff actually participated in the underlying transaction.

For anyone following Mark Dobronski, Rocket Mortgage, TCPA litigation, online mortgage leads, and TCPA arbitration, the next stage of the proceedings could determine whether the dispute remains in federal court or ultimately moves to arbitration.

For now, everything comes back to one question:

Can Rocket Mortgage prove that Mark Dobronski actually submitted the lead that allegedly created the arbitration agreement?

Sources

Primary Source:[ TCPAWorld: “NO FORM, NO FORUM: Rocket Mortgage Must Prove Dobronski Filled Out the Lead Before It Gets Arbitration”](https://tcpaworld.com/2026/08/11/no-form-no-forum-rocket-mortgage-must-prove-dobronski-filled-out-the-lead-before-it-gets-arbitration/?utm_source=chatgpt.com), published August 11, 2026.

Case: Dobronski v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, No. 25-12798, 2026 WL 2296669 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 2026).

Authorities Discussed: Southard v. Newcomb Oil Co., No. 19-5187 (6th Cir. Nov. 12, 2019); Boykin v. Family Dollar Stores of Michigan, LLC, 3 F.4th 832 (6th Cir. 2021); and Bazemore v. Papa John’s USA, Inc., 74 F.4th 795 (6th Cir. 2023).

Disclaimer

This article is for informational and commentary purposes only. Statements attributed to the parties, attorneys, witnesses, or TCPAWorld are presented as allegations, arguments, testimony, or commentary and are not necessarily established facts.

The reported ruling did not finally determine whether Dobronski submitted the disputed Rocket Mortgage lead. That issue remained subject to further discovery and proceedings.