We Have Zero Mass Tort Logos. Here's Why That's the Best Reason to Be First.

I could dress this up. I could open with a case study, drop a completion percentage, and let you assume the number came from a mass tort enrollment campaign we ran last quarter.

But that would be dishonest, and you would figure it out eventually. So here is the truth: GroupSettle has not run a mass tort enrollment campaign yet. Zero logos. Zero published curves. Zero references you can call.

And I think that is the single best reason for a plaintiff firm to talk to us this month.

What We Do Have

We have the engine. The same owned stack that runs mass arbitration completion campaigns (native document signing, SMS, email, AI voice for holdouts, and an AI super agent that handles 80%+ of claimant inquiries over text and email) is what powers a mass tort enrollment drive. The problem is structurally identical: you have a list of people who need to sign something, and your job is to get enough of them across the line before a deadline.

In mass arb, we do that at $9.99 per fully signed claimant (release and closing statement both executed), against the $20 to $25 legacy administrators charge. We include campaign customer service, signature procurement, and funds disbursement in that number. And we reach thresholds legacy providers walk away from, with roughly 50% more effectiveness on completion in the matters we run.

The reason we can do all of that at less than half the price is not volume discounts or a willingness to lose money. It is structural. GroupSettle is a division of Send It By Text. We own the document signing layer. We own the SMS and email delivery. We own the AI voice channel. We own the AI super agent. Legacy administrators license those five capabilities from five vendors and mark each one up. We built them. That difference in architecture is worth about $12 per claimant on every matter we touch.

Why the First Three Matters Are Different

A vendor with no logos in a vertical has exactly one thing to offer that an established vendor cannot: terms that will never exist again.

Here is what the first three mass tort firms to run with GroupSettle will get:

• A founding rate, locked. The per-claimant pricing for these first three campaigns will be set at the current mass arb rate and will not move for the duration of the engagement. When we have the logos and the curves to justify market pricing, the founding rate stays where it was.
• Published completion curves. We will publish the enrollment completion data from these campaigns (with your approval) so that future firms can see exactly what the engine did. You become the benchmark, not the buyer of someone else's benchmark.
• A direct line to the builders. Not a project manager reading from a playbook. Not a support ticket queue. The people who wrote the code and designed the funnel. On these first three matters, that access is not a perk. It is the operating model.
• The $2 threshold bonus. Same structure as mass arb. $9.99 per signed enrollee is the base. If the campaign hits the firm's target threshold, the rate steps to $11.99 on every signed enrollee, including the early ones. Miss the number, and you pay $9.99, nothing more. Two dollars of our fee only exist if you get to your number. No legacy administrator ties any part of its fee to the outcome.

Why We Can Afford to Do This

Because we own the technology. The marginal cost of running a high-touch enrollment campaign through our stack is low. We can run the engine at or near cost and still make the model work. That is the same structural reality that lets us put part of our fee on the outcome in mass arb, and it translates directly to mass tort.

A legacy administrator cannot offer a founding rate and a threshold bonus and a direct line to the engineering team. Their cost structure will not allow it. They are paying five vendors before they pay themselves. We are paying ourselves, and we built the thing we are selling.

The Honest Pitch

I am not going to pretend this is a zero-risk proposition. We have not run a mass tort enrollment campaign. We have run the same funnel on the same stack for mass arb matters, and the results are strong. The architecture is the same. The channels are the same. The AI super agent handles the same kinds of questions. Native document signing works the same way whether the form is a release or an enrollment agreement.

But you would be first. And the trade for being first is that you get a rate, a level of access, and a degree of transparency that will not exist once we have three published campaigns and a line of firms waiting to use them as proof.

That is the whole pitch. No invented urgency. No manufactured scarcity. Just a window that is open because we have not done this yet, and a stack that was built to do exactly this.