A prerecorded sales call to a number on the Do Not Call Registry can support two TCPA claims, not one. The Sixth Circuit held in 2011 that a plaintiff may recover statutory damages under both § 227(b) and § 227(c) for the same call, because each subsection has its own private right of action. It also held that several Do Not Call regulation violations in one call add up to only one § 227(c) recovery. How a complaint counts violations is often where a damages demand is most inflated.
Why can one call violate two parts of the TCPA?
Because the statute regulates two different things. Subsection (b) restricts calls made with an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice, and subsection (c) restricts telephone solicitations to people who’ve asked not to be called, including numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. A prerecorded sales call to a Registry number can fall under both.
Each subsection has its own damages clause. Section 227(b)(3) lets a person sue “to receive $500 in damages for each such violation,” and section 227(c)(5) allows an action “to receive up to $500 in damages for each such violation.” Both clauses let the court increase the award to “not more than 3 times” that amount if the defendant “willfully or knowingly” violated the rules.
What did the court hold in Charvat v. NMP?
That the two recoveries can be combined for one call. The court framed the issue as “whether Charvat may recover statutory damages under both the automated-call subsection of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), and the do-not-call-list subsection.” In Charvat v. NMP, LLC (6th Cir. 2011) 656 F.3d 440, it reasoned that “By enacting separate private-right-of-action provisions, each including a statutory damages provision, Congress evidenced its intent” to allow recovery for both harms.
The holding was explicit. The opinion concludes that a person “may recover statutory damages of $1500 for a willful or knowing violation of the automated-call requirements, § 227(b)(3), and $1500 for a willful or knowing violation of the do-not-call-list requirements, § 227(c)(5)” even if both violations occurred in the same telephone call. Those figures are the trebled maximum, up to three times the base amount, and assume a willful or knowing finding. Without one, the base amount under each subsection is $500.
Charvat is a Sixth Circuit decision. It binds the federal courts in that circuit, and courts elsewhere may treat it as persuasive or reach their own view. A business sued in California should check how the district court and the Ninth Circuit have handled the question before conceding the point.
Can a plaintiff count several Do Not Call rule violations in one call?
Not in the Sixth Circuit. Before reaching the cross-subsection question, the court in Charvat held the plaintiff “is limited to collecting statutory damages on a per-call basis for his multiple claims” under the Do Not Call procedure rules. It relied on its earlier holding that § 227(c)(5)’s damages provision “unambiguously allows for statutory damages on only a per-call basis.”
The reasoning ties the violation to the call. As the court put it, “The ‘violation of the regulations’ is therefore the initiation of the phone call without having implemented the minimum procedures.” A complaint that charges separate counts for a missing written policy, untrained staff, and a failure to honor a request, all for the same call, may describe one recoverable violation, not three.
Do the caller-identification rules add damages?
The Sixth Circuit said no. Its opinion states that “Technical and procedural standards specific to automated calls are included in § 227(d) and accompanying regulation 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(b), which do not provide a private right of action or a statutory-damages provision.” Those are the rules requiring prerecorded messages to identify the caller and give a callback number, covered in the post on prerecorded message identification and opt-out rules. A violation can still matter to the FCC and to state law, but it isn’t a separate private damages claim under § 227(d) in that circuit.
| Claim theory | Statute | Base amount per violation | How violations are counted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autodialed or prerecorded call | § 227(b)(3) | $500, up to treble if willful or knowing | Per violation of subsection (b) |
| Do Not Call or internal list rules | § 227(c)(5) | Up to $500, up to treble if willful or knowing | Per call in the Sixth Circuit, even if several rules were missed |
| Both, for the same call | (b)(3) and (c)(5) | Separate recovery under each in the Sixth Circuit | One award per subsection |
| Prerecorded identification rules | § 227(d), § 64.1200(b) | No private damages, per Charvat | FCC and state enforcement |
How does this change a business’s defense?
It moves the fight to the count. A demand letter that multiplies calls by every rule it can name, then trebles the total, is usually built on assumptions a court hasn’t accepted. The first job is to separate the subsection (b) theory from the subsection (c) theory and test each one on its own elements, since a call that wasn’t prerecorded or autodialed can’t support the first, and a call to a consenting customer may defeat both.
The Do Not Call claim also carries its own defense. Section 227(c)(5) makes it “an affirmative defense” that the defendant “has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures” to prevent prohibited solicitations. That defense has to be pleaded, as the post on affirmative defenses in a TCPA answer explains. Willfulness is the other lever, because trebling is discretionary and requires a finding the plaintiff has to earn. A company that scrubbed its lists and honored requests has a real answer to it.
Those points are the core of California TCPA defense in a stacked-damages case, where the realistic exposure is often a fraction of the number in the complaint.
Records to gather when a complaint stacks TCPA claims
- Preserve call and text logs, dialer and platform data, and any consent records for the numbers involved, and put them under a litigation hold.
- Pull opt-out and internal do-not-call logs with dates, so each request can be matched to the calls that followed it.
- Pull the National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and the Registry version dates used for each campaign, as described in the post on the 31-day scrub rule.
- Collect vendor and lead-source contracts and call scripts, along with the prerecorded or AI-voice files, which decide whether a subsection (b) claim exists at all.
- Talk to a lawyer before answering the demand, contacting the person who received the calls, or making a settlement offer.
Questions about TCPA damages for a single call
Is a business always liable for the trebled amount on every call?
No. The base amount is $500 per violation under § 227(b)(3) and up to $500 under § 227(c)(5). The statute says the court “may, in its discretion” increase either award to not more than three times that amount, but only if it finds the violation was willful or knowing. Many demand letters quote the trebled figure as if it were automatic, and it isn’t.
Can a plaintiff get both 227(b) and 227(c) damages in California?
Charvat allows it in the Sixth Circuit, and its reasoning rests on the statute’s two separate damages clauses. A California federal court isn’t bound by it and may reach its own view. Either way, the plaintiff still has to prove each claim’s elements separately, so the business can defeat one claim even if the other survives.
Does every Do Not Call rule violation count separately?
Not under Charvat. The Sixth Circuit treated the violation as placing the call without the required procedures in place, so several missed procedures in one call produced one recovery under § 227(c)(5). A complaint that counts each missing procedure as its own violation is worth testing early, before it shapes settlement expectations.
Does the 227(c)(5) good-faith defense apply to 227(b) claims?
No. The defense for reasonable practices and procedures appears in § 227(c)(5) and applies to Do Not Call claims. A subsection (b) claim about prerecorded or autodialed calls is usually defended on consent, on whether the technology falls within the statute, or on whether the call was made by or for the defendant.
When a complaint stacks claims for the same calls
If your company has been sued for calls that the complaint counts under both the robocall and Do Not Call provisions, the way the violations are counted often matters as much as whether any occurred. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving prerecorded calls to Do Not Call numbers. 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 FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.
The court decision is Charvat v. NMP, LLC (6th Cir. 2011) 656 F.3d 440.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of April 4, 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.