Winning a TCPA case doesn’t usually mean getting your legal fees back. The statute doesn’t shift fees to a prevailing defendant, and each side pays its own lawyers under the American rule. A business sued over calls it never made, or texts the plaintiff invited, has to look to the federal sanctions rules and the court’s own power over bad faith. Those routes are narrow and procedural, and a company that builds the record early has a much better chance of using one.
Can a business recover attorney’s fees after winning a TCPA case?
Not under the TCPA itself. 47 U.S.C. § 227 gives a private plaintiff statutory damages and lets a court increase them, up to three times, if it finds the violation was willful or knowing, but it says nothing about attorney’s fees for either side. That cuts in the defendant’s favor on exposure, since a winning plaintiff can’t add a fee award to the damages. It also means a defendant that wins has no statutory fee claim to make.
So fee recovery depends on something outside the statute. A contract with a fee clause is one source, and the earlier post on counterclaims against TCPA plaintiffs covers how a terms-of-service fee clause has produced a real award. The other sources are sanctions, and they aim at the conduct of the litigation, not at who won.
When does Rule 11 apply to a TCPA complaint?
When the complaint’s factual or legal contentions had no reasonable basis when it was filed, or the case was brought for an improper purpose. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), a lawyer who signs a pleading certifies, after “an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” that the filing is “not being presented for any improper purpose” and that “the factual contentions have evidentiary support” or likely will after discovery.
In TCPA cases the strongest Rule 11 facts are usually concrete and provable. The plaintiff sued a company that has records showing it never called the number. The complaint alleges an autodialer when the plaintiff’s own exhibits show a person typing replies. The plaintiff or a family member filled out the lead form that supplied the consent, under a name that turns up on other lawsuits. Allegations copied from a template, naming equipment the defendant never owned, are another pattern courts notice.
Rule 11 has a built-in waiting period, and it’s the trap most defendants hit. The rule requires that a sanctions motion “be made separately from any other motion,” and it says the motion “must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service.” The defendant serves the motion on plaintiff’s counsel first, waits the 21 days, and files only if the claim stays in the case. A sanctions request tucked into a motion to dismiss, or filed after the case is already over, usually fails for that reason alone.
The 21 days are also an opportunity. A plaintiff’s lawyer who receives a well-supported Rule 11 motion often dismisses within the window, and that dismissal is frequently worth more to the business than any award would have been.
What can a Rule 11 sanction include?
Less than most defendants expect. The rule says a sanction “must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” Rule 11(c)(4) allows a payment of fees to the movant only “if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence.” Courts treat fee awards as one option among several, not the default.
There’s a second limit that matters in TCPA cases. Under Rule 11(c)(5)(A), a court can’t award monetary sanctions “against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2),” the provision about legal contentions. A frivolous legal theory is the lawyer’s responsibility. A plaintiff who lied about the facts, such as denying a sign-up the records prove, can face sanctions personally.
Can the plaintiff’s lawyer be ordered to pay under § 1927?
Yes, but only for multiplying the proceedings, not for filing the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1927 provides that an attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally” the excess fees and costs that conduct caused. The award runs against the lawyer, not the client, and it’s limited to the extra cost the conduct caused.
That makes § 1927 a tool for the middle of a case. A plaintiff’s firm that keeps pressing a class theory after the named plaintiff’s consent record surfaces, or that serves discovery aimed at nothing but cost, is the kind of conduct the statute reaches. It has no 21-day waiting period, though courts expect a clear record of what the lawyer knew and when.
What about the court’s inherent power?
It reaches bad-faith conduct that the rules don’t cover, and courts use it sparingly. The Supreme Court in Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991), confirmed that federal courts have inherent power to sanction bad faith, and it cautioned that “Because of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion.”
The Ninth Circuit, which covers California’s federal courts, requires a specific finding. In Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2001), the court held that “sanctions are available if the court specifically finds bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith.” Recklessness alone won’t do, though the court said recklessness combined with an improper purpose can qualify. Evidence destruction is where inherent-power sanctions most often show up in TCPA cases, and the earlier post on spoliation of dialer and SMS data covers the rules that usually govern it.
| Route | Who pays | What triggers it | Main procedural limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11 | Lawyer, firm, or party | A filing with no factual or legal basis, or an improper purpose | Separate motion, served 21 days before filing |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1927 | The plaintiff’s lawyer personally | Unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings | Only the excess costs the conduct caused |
| Inherent power | Lawyer or party | Bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith | A specific bad-faith finding |
| Rule 68 offer of judgment | The plaintiff | Judgment no better than a rejected offer | Shifts post-offer costs, not attorney’s fees, in a TCPA case |
| Contract fee clause | Whichever side the clause and the law allow | Prevailing on a contract claim | California’s Civil Code § 1717 can make the clause reciprocal |
Does a Rule 68 offer of judgment help?
Some, and mainly as settlement pressure. Rule 68(d) provides that “If the judgment that the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.” Because the TCPA doesn’t award fees, those costs are things like filing fees and transcripts, not attorney’s fees. The amounts are modest. The pressure is real, though, because a plaintiff’s lawyer has to explain to the client why a rejected offer turned out better than the verdict.
An unaccepted offer doesn’t end the case, and nobody should make one expecting it to moot an individual or class claim. Use it to set a number on the record.
What to do when the claim looks baseless
- Put a litigation hold on the call and text logs, the dialer or platform data, and the consent records for the claimant’s number, including the form, the time stamp, and the IP address behind any sign-up.
- Pull the opt-out history and the internal do-not-call list for the number, with dates, so any claim that the company ignored a stop request can be tested against the record.
- Pull the Registry scrub records and the version dates for the period the complaint covers.
- Collect the vendor and lead-source contracts, the call scripts, and any recorded or AI-voice files, so the company can show who actually placed the calls.
- Have a lawyer review the file before answering the demand, contacting the claimant, or offering money, and before anyone threatens sanctions in writing.
A sanctions threat in a first letter, without the evidence attached, reads as posturing and gives the plaintiff’s lawyer a reason to dig in. A served Rule 11 motion that lays out the call records is a different document, and TCPA litigation counsel will usually hold the sanctions argument until the record supports it.
Questions businesses ask about sanctions in TCPA cases
Can we get sanctions against a serial TCPA plaintiff just for filing many lawsuits?
Not on volume alone. Filing many TCPA suits isn’t misconduct by itself, because the statute lets anyone with a valid claim sue. Sanctions need a defect in this case: a false factual allegation, a manufactured consent, or bad-faith conduct in the litigation. The earlier post on serial TCPA plaintiffs covers the defenses that volume can support.
Does California state court have its own version of Rule 11?
Yes. Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 tracks the federal rule closely, including the separate motion and the 21-day period to withdraw the challenged filing before the motion is filed. It doesn’t apply to discovery, which California handles under its own sanctions provisions.
Can a sanctions motion backfire?
It can. Rule 11 allows the court to award the prevailing party its expenses on the motion, so a weak sanctions motion can produce a fee award against the company that filed it. Courts also look harder at a defendant that uses sanctions threats to pressure a plaintiff out of a colorable claim. File only when the records carry the motion on their own.
Is the plaintiff’s lawyer or the plaintiff more likely to pay?
Usually the lawyer. Rule 11 bars monetary sanctions against a represented party for frivolous legal contentions, and § 1927 runs only against attorneys. A plaintiff personally faces sanctions mainly for false factual statements or for destroying evidence, which is why the consent and device records are worth fighting for in discovery.
If your company is defending a baseless TCPA claim
If your company has been sued over calls or texts its records show it never sent, or that the plaintiff asked for, those records usually decide whether a sanctions motion is worth serving. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims built on manufactured consent. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. The federal sanctions provisions are Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The offer-of-judgment rule is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. California’s counterpart to Rule 11 is Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7.
The court decisions are Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991), and Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2001).
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of July 9, 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.