TCPA Damages Exposure: How Courts Count It, and Where to Push Back
TCPA damages start at $500 per violation. Recorded-voice and autodialer claims carry $500 per call, Do Not Call claims carry up to $500 per call, and a court may raise either to as much as $1,500 per call if it finds the violation willful or knowing. Because every call counts, a demand letter can look alarming. The real number usually depends on how many calls actually violated the rules, whether trebling applies, and whether the claim can be aggregated into a class.
How the per-call math works
The statute uses two formulas. For recorded-voice and autodialer violations, a plaintiff can recover “actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater,” under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). For Do Not Call violations, § 227(c)(5) says “up to $500,” which leaves the amount to the court, and it requires more than one violating call in 12 months before any claim exists.
The Ninth Circuit described the structure in Wakefield v. ViSalus: “Congress thus set a floor of statutory damages at $500 for each violation of the TCPA but no ceiling for cumulative damages, in a class action or otherwise.” That’s the source of the risk, and also the source of the first defense: every call in the count has to be proven to be a violation.
Trebling is discretionary, and the standard is real
The statute lets the court, “in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available,” under § 227(b)(3). So trebling isn’t automatic, and it’s capped.
The knowledge standard matters too. The Eleventh Circuit held in Lary v. Trinity Physician Financial & Insurance Services that “The requirement of “willful[] or knowing[]” conduct requires the violator to know he was performing the conduct that violates the statute.” Knowing that you placed a call isn’t enough under that reading. The caller has to know the facts that made it unlawful.
Courts do decline to treble. In N.L. v. Credit One Bank, after a verdict of $500 for each of 189 calls, the opinion notes that the trial court “denied N.L.’s post-trial motion for treble damages under the TCPA.” In my view, the facts that most often support a willfulness finding are calls that continued after the company was told to stop or told it had the wrong number. A company that can show it acted promptly on those notices takes most of the air out of a treble-damages demand.
Can one call count twice?
Sometimes, and sometimes not. A recorded sales call to a registered cell phone can violate both the recorded-voice rule and the Do Not Call rule. The Sixth Circuit held in Charvat v. NMP that “The fact that the statute includes separate provisions for statutory damages in subsections (b) and (c) suggests that a plaintiff could recover under both.”
The same court limited stacking within the Do Not Call section. A call that breaks several Do Not Call regulations still counts once, because the statute “unambiguously allows for statutory damages on only a per-call basis,” as the court held in Charvat v. GVN Michigan. Both decisions come from the Sixth Circuit, so California courts can follow them or not. Defendants should press GVN whenever a demand letter counts each regulation separately.
Aggregate awards and due process
Class actions are where TCPA numbers get enormous, and the Ninth Circuit has recognized a limit. In Wakefield, it held that “aggregated statutory damages awards are, in certain extreme circumstances, subject to constitutional due process limitations,” per the opinion, and sent a judgment of more than $900 million back to the trial court for reconsideration. The court cautioned that “only very rarely will an aggregated statutory damages award meet the exacting Williams standard and exceed constitutional limitations where the per-violation amount does not.” It’s a narrow argument, but in a large class case it changes the settlement math.
Exposure scenarios
These use the statutory figures only and assume each call is proven to violate the rule listed.
| Scenario | Provision | Base exposure | If willful or knowing |
|---|---|---|---|
| One recorded sales call to a cell phone without consent | § 227(b)(3) | $500 | Up to $1,500 |
| 12 recorded collection calls after consent was revoked | § 227(b)(3) | $6,000 | Up to $18,000 |
| 8 sales calls over two months to a registered number | § 227(c)(5) | Up to $4,000 | Up to $12,000 |
| 10 recorded sales calls to a registered cell phone, if a court allows recovery under both sections | § 227(b)(3) and (c)(5) | $5,000 plus up to $5,000 | Up to $15,000 plus up to $15,000 |
For text-only Do Not Call claims, the third row may drop to zero. The Seventh Circuit held in July 2026 that texts aren’t telephone calls for that provision, in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services. California courts aren’t bound by it, but it’s available to argue here.
Testing the count in a demand letter
- Put a litigation hold on the call and text records for the number and pull the complete history, not just what the letter lists.
- Pull the consent records and the opt-out log, including the internal do-not-call list, with dates, to separate lawful calls from disputed ones.
- Pull the Registry scrub records and version dates for each campaign that reached the number.
- Gather recorded-message files and dialer settings, which decide whether the recorded-voice or autodialer formulas apply at all.
- Talk to a lawyer before responding with a counteroffer, which can lock in a count you haven’t verified.
For claims involving statutory damages and willfulness allegations, the firm’s California TCPA defense page sets out what the defense looks at first.
Questions businesses ask about TCPA damages
Are TCPA damages calculated per call or per lawsuit?
Per violation, which usually means per call or text. That’s why exposure grows with call volume. Within the Do Not Call section, at least one appellate court has held that a single call supports only one recovery even if it breaks several regulations, which can cut an inflated count down sharply. The limitations period also limits how far back the count can reach. See our post on the TCPA statute of limitations.
Will a court automatically triple the damages?
No. Trebling requires a finding that the violation was willful or knowing, and even then the court decides whether to increase the award and by how much, up to three times the base. Courts have declined to treble after plaintiffs won at trial. Prompt action on stop requests is the best protection against a willfulness finding.
Can a single call be worth $1,000 or more?
Possibly, if the call violates both the recorded-voice and Do Not Call provisions and a court allows recovery under both. With trebling, the theoretical maximum climbs further. Whether courts in California allow stacking across the two sections is an open question, and defendants should contest it.
Does the TCPA award attorney’s fees to plaintiffs?
The damages provisions in § 227(b) and § 227(c) of the federal statute don’t include fee-shifting. That limits exposure in individual cases. Class settlements and some state laws work differently, so the answer for a particular case depends on the claims pleaded. The lack of fee-shifting also shapes how an offer of judgment works, which our post on Rule 68 and Section 998 offers covers. Our post on state mini-TCPA laws covers three state statutes that reach marketing texts.
Defending a TCPA damages claim
If your company faces a TCPA claim, the per-call math cuts both ways, and the count of actual violations is often far smaller than a demand letter suggests. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving statutory damages and willfulness claims. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is 47 U.S.C. § 227. The court decisions are Wakefield v. ViSalus, Inc., 51 F.4th 1109 (9th Cir. 2022); N.L. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 960 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2020); Lary v. Trinity Physician Financial & Insurance Services, 780 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 2015); Charvat v. NMP, LLC, 656 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2011); Charvat v. GVN Michigan, Inc., 561 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2009); and Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026).
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of August 1, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Courts and the FCC change the rules in this area often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.