Treble damages under the TCPA aren’t automatic. The statute lets a court increase an award to “not more than 3 times” the base amount only if it finds the defendant “willfully or knowingly” violated the law, and even then the increase is discretionary. Courts have read that standard to require more than knowing that a call was placed. For a business, the trebling fight is usually about what it knew about its own lists, consent records, and vendors, and that record is built long before any lawsuit.
What does the statute say about treble damages?
Two subsections use the same words. Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), which covers autodialed and prerecorded calls, “If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available.” Section 227(c)(5), the Do Not Call provision, uses nearly identical language.
Three features matter in a defense. The court makes the finding, not the plaintiff’s complaint. The increase is discretionary, so a court can find a willful violation and still decline to treble. And the cap is a ceiling: “not more than” three times means the court can pick any amount up to it.
What does willful or knowing mean under the TCPA?
At least one federal appeals court requires knowledge of the facts that make the conduct unlawful. In Lary v. Trinity Physician Financial & Insurance Services (11th Cir. 2015) 780 F.3d 1101, the court held that the willful-or-knowing requirement “requires the violator to know he was performing the conduct that violates the statute.”
The court explained why a looser reading wouldn’t work. If knowing about the call or fax were enough, the statute “would have almost no room for violations” that aren’t willful or knowing, the opinion states. Under that reading, a company that dialed a number without knowing it was on the Registry, or without knowing consent had been revoked, has a strong argument against trebling.
Lary binds the Eleventh Circuit. Courts in other circuits, including district courts in California, have used different formulations, and some have treated a deliberate decision to call as enough. A business shouldn’t assume the narrowest reading will apply, which is why the factual record matters more than the label.
Can a plaintiff plead willfulness with one sentence?
The Eleventh Circuit said no. In Lary, the complaint alleged the violations were willful and knowing, but the court held that the complaint’s bare assertion of willful and knowing violations “was a legal conclusion, not an allegation of fact that we must accept as true.” Many TCPA complaints add willfully and knowingly to every count without alleging what the company actually knew. That’s worth pointing out early, even if it won’t end the case.
When have courts trebled TCPA damages?
When the evidence showed the company knew about the problem and let it continue. In Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (4th Cir. 2019) 925 F.3d 643, a jury found the company liable for Do Not Call violations by a retailer that marketed its service, and the district court trebled the award. The Fourth Circuit affirmed and noted the district court’s finding that “what Dish calls a mistaken belief is actually willful ignorance.”
The opinion is a warning about paper compliance. The court wrote that the company “seems to think that so long as it includes certain language in a contract or issues the occasional perfunctory warning to a retailer the court will not look past the formalities and examine the actual control exercised by Dish.” It added that “repeated expressions of ignorance as to a widespread problem can evince more than simply negligence,” and can also be a sign that violations are tolerated.
The same opinion also states the limit. “Trebling is never to be done lightly. Given the consequences for a company, a trebled award must rest on solid evidence,” the Fourth Circuit wrote. That sentence is useful for any defendant arguing that the plaintiff’s evidence of knowledge is thin.
| Evidence | Likely effect on trebling | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Registry scrub before each campaign, documented | Weighs against | Shows the company didn’t know a number was listed |
| Opt-outs honored within the required time, with logs | Weighs against | Shows procedures worked |
| Vendor complaints or regulator inquiries ignored | Weighs toward | Knowledge of a pattern, as in Krakauer |
| Contract terms with no monitoring | Weighs toward | Courts look past formalities to actual control |
| A complaint that only labels the violations willful | Weak support | Lary treats it as a legal conclusion |
How does a business keep a case out of the trebled tier?
By having records that show it didn’t know. The facts that defeat trebling are the same facts that support the Do Not Call good-faith defense: a written policy, trained staff, scrubbed lists, and honored opt-outs. The post on internal do-not-call policies covers what those procedures look like.
Vendor oversight is the other half. Krakauer shows that a contract requiring compliance doesn’t help much if the company had reason to know the vendor was ignoring it. Contracts with audit rights, complaint reporting, and termination triggers, discussed in the post on TCPA vendor contracts and indemnity, give the company a record that it acted on what it learned. And because treble damages multiply each count, the way violations are counted, covered in the post on damages under 227(b) and 227(c) for the same call, matters just as much.
Trebling arguments often decide settlement value in class cases, which is why lawyers defending TCPA class actions in California usually address knowledge from the first response.
What to pull when a complaint alleges willful TCPA violations
- Put a litigation hold on call and text logs, dialer and platform data, and consent records for the numbers in the complaint.
- Pull the opt-out and internal do-not-call logs with dates, which show whether requests were honored on time.
- Gather the National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and the Registry version dates used for each campaign.
- Collect vendor and lead-source contracts and scripts, plus any complaints, audits, or warnings exchanged with vendors, and any prerecorded or AI-voice files.
- Talk to a lawyer before responding to the demand, contacting the plaintiff, or discussing settlement, since early statements about what the company knew can become evidence.
Questions about TCPA treble damages
Is trebling automatic if a court finds a willful violation?
No. The statute says the court “may, in its discretion” increase the award. A finding of willful or knowing conduct makes trebling possible, not required, and the court can choose any amount up to three times the base award. In Krakauer, the district court explained that a larger award was needed to deter future violations, and the appeals court left that decision in place.
Does a company’s ignorance of a vendor’s violations protect it?
It can, if the ignorance is real and reasonable. Krakauer shows the limit: the court affirmed a finding that the company’s claimed lack of knowledge was “willful ignorance” because even a cursory look would have uncovered the violations. A company that monitored its vendors and acted on complaints is in a much better position than one that relied on contract language alone.
Can a business be trebled for calling a number it didn’t know was on the Registry?
Under Lary‘s reading, that’s a strong argument against trebling, because the company didn’t know it was doing the thing that violates the statute. Courts in other circuits may read the standard differently. The best protection is a documented scrub before each campaign, which also supports the Do Not Call good-faith defense.
Can treble damages be decided at the pleading stage?
Sometimes the allegation can be challenged early. Lary treated a bare assertion of willfulness as a legal conclusion. But many courts leave the question for summary judgment or trial, because it depends on what the company knew. Even when the claim survives, pointing out a thin allegation can shape how both sides value the case.
If the complaint says your violations were willful
If your company has been accused of willful or knowing TCPA violations, the records of what it knew about its call lists and its vendors usually decide whether trebling is a real risk. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving alleged willful Do Not Call violations. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act at 47 U.S.C. § 227.
The court decisions are Lary v. Trinity Physician Financial & Insurance Services (11th Cir. 2015) 780 F.3d 1101 and Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (4th Cir. 2019) 925 F.3d 643.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of April 6, 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.