Settling an Individual TCPA Claim: Release Terms That Close the File

A TCPA settlement check buys peace only if the paperwork says whose claims are released and which companies are protected. Many individual settlements get the dollar figure right and leave gaps elsewhere, like a spouse who also answered the calls or a lead vendor missing from the release. Those gaps are how the same calls come back as a second lawsuit. A business that negotiates the release as hard as the payment usually closes the file for good.

Whose claims does the release actually cover?

Only the claims of the people who sign it, and the statute hands out claims generously. The Do Not Call provision lets “A person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection” sue, according to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), and the robocall provision gives a claim to “A person or entity” under § 227(b)(3). Neither provision’s text limits the claim to the account holder, so treat household members who use the line as potential plaintiffs.

So the release should name every number the plaintiff owns or uses, not just the one in the complaint. If a spouse or roommate also used the line, get that person’s signature where you can. When you can’t, ask for a written statement that the plaintiff is the only regular user of each listed number, and price the deal knowing the risk isn’t gone.

On the other side, list every company you need protected: the business and its affiliates, plus every vendor, texting platform, dialing service, and lead seller that touched the calls. A plaintiff who releases only “Defendant” can turn around and sue the vendor over the same calls, and the indemnity fight that follows can land back on you. Releasing the vendor doesn’t have to mean giving up your own rights against it, and the agreement should say so. We covered how those contract rights work in our post on TCPA vendor contracts and indemnity.

Which claims belong in the release besides the TCPA?

Every claim that could grow out of the same calls and texts. State telemarketing statutes are the usual add-on. Florida’s version, for example, provides that “A called party who is aggrieved by a violation of this section may bring an action,” under Fla. Stat. § 501.059. If the calls were recorded and the plaintiff was in California, add claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which carries its own exposure. We explained how those claims ride along with TCPA suits in our post on California call recording. Add common law privacy theories, and release claims known or unknown through the signing date.

One caution for collection agencies and lenders: a mutual release can wipe out the debt the plaintiff owes you. If the account balance should survive, carve it out in plain words. If it’s being forgiven, say that too.

Does a California plaintiff need a Section 1542 waiver?

Yes, if the release is meant to reach claims the plaintiff doesn’t know about yet. California’s Civil Code § 1542 provides: “A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.” That’s the current wording, in effect since January 1, 2019. Older form releases still quote the pre-2019 version, which speaks only of a creditor and a debtor. Use the current text.

A specific waiver signed with a lawyer’s advice is the strongest version. In Winet v. Price, 4 Cal. App. 4th 1159 (1992), a California Court of Appeal enforced a release that quoted § 1542 and waived it on the advice of counsel, explaining that “we may not give credence to a claim that a party did not intend clear and direct language to be effective.” Quote the statute, and state that the plaintiff’s lawyer explained it.

A § 1542 waiver has a hard limit, though. It reaches claims that exist when the plaintiff signs. A call your system places to the plaintiff next month is a new claim that a release of past claims won’t reach, which is why the next term matters as much as the release.

Why is suppression worth more than it costs?

Because it’s the term that does the most to prevent the next claim. Businesses sometimes treat a plaintiff’s request to be removed from every list as a concession. I’d treat it as the term that does the most work and offer it early.

The rules already require much of it. A company that makes telemarketing calls must record a residential subscriber’s do-not-call request and honor it within a reasonable time that “may not exceed ten (10) business days from the receipt of such request,” and “A do-not-call request must be honored for 5 years from the time the request is made,” under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3) and (d)(6). A signed settlement listing the plaintiff’s numbers is about as clear a do-not-call request as a company will ever receive, so the settlement and the internal do-not-call list need to match. Our April post on internal do-not-call policies covers how that list should work.

Write the suppression term so the company can actually keep it. Name the numbers. Set a deadline that matches the ten-business-day rule. Say whether it covers marketing only or every call, because a lender or utility may still need to send account notices. Require the company to pass the numbers to its vendors, and have the plaintiff agree in writing to that sharing. Section 64.1200(d)(3) requires a consumer’s “prior express permission to share or forward the consumer’s request not to be called” to anyone other than the company the calls are made for or its affiliates. But don’t promise that no one anywhere will ever call. A suppression promise is a contract term, and a breach is a fresh claim on top of any new TCPA claim.

What can confidentiality and no-admission terms do?

A no-admission clause is standard, and the evidence rules back it up. Federal Rule of Evidence 408(a) bars using a settlement or settlement talks “to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim.” That protection applies whether or not the agreement says so, though the rule has exceptions and state courts apply their own versions.

Confidentiality has real limits. It can keep the amount off the plaintiff’s social media, and it should. It can’t stop the plaintiff from answering a subpoena, and it should let them talk to their tax and legal advisors. Carve those out instead of writing a clause a court may not enforce. It also can’t bind the plaintiff’s lawyer to stop suing your company. California’s Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6(a)(2) bars a lawyer from offering or making “an agreement that imposes a restriction on a lawyer’s right to practice in connection with a settlement of a client controversy.” Defense counsel can’t propose that term either.

What closes the case once the money is paid?

A dismissal that says it’s with prejudice. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(B), “Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.” A stipulation that’s silent on the point leaves the plaintiff free to refile, and you’d be left pleading the release as a defense. In a case filed as a class action, the usual structure is a dismissal with prejudice of the plaintiff’s individual claims and without prejudice to the putative class members, who never agreed to anything.

Decide up front which court will enforce the deal. The Supreme Court held in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), that enforcing a settlement after the case is dismissed “requires its own basis for jurisdiction,” and that “The judge’s mere awareness and approval of the terms of the settlement agreement do not suffice to make them part of his order.” Unless there’s an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, the dismissal order has to retain jurisdiction or incorporate the terms if you want the federal judge to enforce the agreement. In California state court, Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 lets the court “retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement” if the parties stipulate to it. That route uses a dismissal without prejudice while the court keeps jurisdiction, and the statute adds that “Nothing in this section shall preclude a party from filing a request for dismissal with prejudice after the court has dismissed the case without prejudice pursuant to this section.” Calendar that filing for the day the last payment clears.

On fees, the TCPA’s private-action provisions provide for an injunction and damages and say nothing about attorney’s fees. Some state statutes do. Florida’s provides that “the prevailing party, after judgment in the trial court and exhaustion of all appeals, if any, shall receive his or her reasonable attorney fees and costs from the nonprevailing party,” under § 501.059(11)(a). The plaintiff’s lawyer is usually paid out of the settlement, and the agreement should say each side bears its own fees and costs and name exactly who receives the payment. Make payment due only after you have the signed agreement and the tax forms you need.

Does a court have to approve an individual settlement of a TCPA class action filed but not yet certified?

In federal court, usually not. Rule 23(e) requires court approval for the claims of “a certified class” or a class proposed for certification as part of a settlement, which “may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s approval.” The 2003 committee note on Rule 23 explains that earlier wording was sometimes read to cover individual deals, and that “The new rule requires approval only if the claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class are resolved by a settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise.”

California state court is different. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.770(a), “A dismissal of an entire class action, or of any party or cause of action in a class action, requires court approval.” The request needs a declaration that states “whether consideration, direct or indirect, is being given for the dismissal” and describes it “in detail.” Draft the confidentiality clause with that filing in mind, because the court will see the deal. Before certification, the court may allow dismissal without notice to the class if it finds the dismissal won’t prejudice class members.

What changes with a repeat filer or a pre-suit demand?

With a repeat filer, the risk is the next claim. Ask for representations that the plaintiff has listed every number they use and hasn’t assigned any claim to anyone else. Ask them to confirm that they know of no other pending claim or demand against the released companies. If the same person has sent demands over several brands you own or several vendors you use, settle them all in one document.

A demand letter settled before anyone sues has no court to approve, enforce, or dismiss anything, so the release does all the work. Add a covenant not to sue, a clear statement of the claims released, and the same suppression term. Rule 408 protects compromise talks over a “disputed claim,” and nothing in its text requires a lawsuit. And confirm that the lawyer who sent the letter actually represents the person whose numbers you’re releasing.

A release checklist for individual TCPA settlements

Before you sign: records to pull

1. Keep the litigation hold in place on call and text logs, platform data, and consent records for the plaintiff’s numbers until the dismissal is final.
2. Pull the opt-out and internal do-not-call history for every number the plaintiff lists, with dates, so the suppression term matches what your systems can do.
3. Pull the National Do Not Call Registry (the federal list of numbers whose owners opted out of telemarketing) scrub records and version dates for the campaigns that reached the plaintiff.
4. Collect the vendor and lead-source contracts along with any scripts or recorded messages, so you know which companies the release must name and which indemnity rights to preserve.
5. Have a lawyer review the agreement before anyone signs it or sends a payment.

When a claim involving Do Not Call lists and marketing texts is filed as a proposed class action, the firm’s page on defending TCPA class actions in California covers what comes next.

Questions businesses ask about individual TCPA settlements

Do we need to notify the putative class if we settle before certification?

In federal court, generally no. The 2003 committee note to Rule 23 says notice isn’t required “when the settlement binds only the individual class representatives.” In California state court, the judge must approve the dismissal and decides whether class members get notice. Either way, dismiss the class claims without prejudice so the settlement can’t be attacked as releasing claims that belonged to people who never signed.

Does the release stop a family member from suing over the same calls?

Not unless that family member signs it. Get their signature, or a written statement from the plaintiff that they’re the only user of the number. Then make sure the suppression term covers that number, which stops the calls the term covers for everyone who uses the line.

Can we ask the plaintiff’s lawyer to stop bringing TCPA cases against us?

Not in California. Rule 5.6 bars lawyers from offering or making a settlement term that restricts a lawyer’s right to practice, and that includes defense counsel proposing it. What you can do is get a broad release from this plaintiff, suppress their numbers, and fix whatever produced the calls. Those steps reduce the next claim without asking for a term the ethics rules forbid.

Should the settlement include our vendor if the vendor made the calls?

Usually yes, as a released party, so the plaintiff can’t sue the vendor and send the bill back to you through an indemnity demand. Say in the agreement that your contract rights against the vendor survive, and consider asking the vendor to contribute to the payment.

Settling a TCPA claim against your company?

If your company is resolving a TCPA lawsuit or demand letter with one plaintiff, the release language decides whether those same calls come back as a new claim. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving Do Not Call lists and marketing texts. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

The statute is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act at 47 U.S.C. § 227. The FCC’s do-not-call rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d), as published in the eCFR through July 22, 2025. The procedural and evidence rules are Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 with its 2003 committee note, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, Federal Rule of Evidence 408, and California Rules of Court, rule 3.770. The state statutes are Cal. Civ. Code § 1542, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 (as added by Stats. 2023, ch. 478, § 13, operative January 1, 2025), and Fla. Stat. § 501.059 (2024). The ethics rule is California Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6.

The court decisions are Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), and Winet v. Price, 4 Cal. App. 4th 1159 (1992).

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of July 22, 2025. 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.