Recovering statutory damages for each violation of TCPA 47 U.S. Code § 227
- Peter Schneider
- Apr 6
- 6 min read
Many regulations implementing the telephone consumer protection act are promulgated under 47 U.S. Code § 227(c). Such as violations of the FTC's national do not call list, call time restrictions, and identifying the caller and who they are calling for.
§ 227(c)(5) says:
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 may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court . . . bring in an appropriate court (B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater
A plain reading of the law would cause most people to think that a TCPA plaintiff can receive up to $500 for each violation of 47 U.S. Code § 227(c). Anti consumer courts have worked hard to change the meaning of this law to up to $500 now how many violations of § 227(c) the telemarketer does. This is not in the best interest of consumers because once a telemarketer decides to violate § 227(c), they have every motivation to violate every section of § 227(c) because their benefits increase while the costs of breaking the law stay the same.
Lets take a look at some cases, the first being Jubb v. CHW, 2025 WL 942961 (D. N.J. March 28, 2025). In this TCPA lawsuit a number of plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit against CHW Group Inc (Choice Home Warranty) for unwanted phone calls.
Among other claims, they sued for:
Count II - Placing more than one call to cell phones registered on the NDNC list in a 12 month period;
Count III - Initiating telephone solicitation calls after 9pm and before 8am.
Count II and Count III are both promulgated under § 227(c). CHW moved to dismiss the entire case, but in this article I want to look at a specific argument CHW made that you don't see very often - they moved to dismiss Count III as duplicative of Count II because both were promulgated under § 227(c).
Not surprisingly the Court declined to do this, but regurgitated the single recovery talking point:
The Court agrees it would be improper to dismiss Count III as duplicative of Count II because Allen can only recover for one of these two alleged violations per call. As Plaintiffs show, courts can limit a plaintiff's recovery to one violation per call once a jury finds multiple violations per call. See Noviello v. Adam Wines Consulting, LLC, No. 22-52, 2023 WL 2776696, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2023). Dismissing a count before then would not only be unnecessary, but it would crucially deprive a plaintiff of their opportunity to establish liability under multiple alternative theories in contravention of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(2). Therefore, the Court will not dismiss Count HI. However, any potential eventual recovery will limited to one violation per call.
The cited Noviello opinion came after a successful jury trial and verdict on TCPA claims, and a motion for an award of treble damages. Noviello brought claims from 10 text messages and 3 voice solicitations despite his phone number being registered on the FTC's NDNC list. The jury awarded $500 for each of the 13 calls. Noviello also asked Adam Wines Consulting to stop calling but the defendant continued four more times, and the jury awarded $500 for each of those four calls.
First, the good portion of Noviello:
Where the violation for the federal do-not-call claim under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) is factually and legally distinct from the internal donot-call claim under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) and the jury separately awarded damages for both violations, Noviello may recover for each violation, including where there is found to be two violations arising from a single call. In total, the judgment from the jury award, before damages are trebled should be $8500, which includes 13 violations of the federal DNC and 4 violations of the internal DNC claim at $500 per violation.
And then the bad portion of Noviello:
Noviello points to no case law that permits a plaintiff to recover damages for multiple violations under Section 227(c)(5) for a single call or text — as opposed to permitting recovery damages under both Sections 227(b) and 227(c)(5) for violations under each of those separate sections arising from a single call or text. Several courts have adopted the latter position, but the Court has located no case law adopting the former position that Noviello presses here. When presented with the issue of whether a plaintiff can recover damages for multiple violations under Section 227(c)(5) for a single call or text, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has persuasively explained that a district court correctly concluded that, under Section 227(c)(5), "the TCPA does not allow for the award of statutory damages for each violation during a call, but instead limits statutory damages to one award per call." Charvat v. GVN Mich., Inc., 561 F.3d 623, 631 (6th Cir. 2009). The Court of Appeals explained that the plaintiff argued "that the district court misinterpreted § 227(c)(5) and misapplied the rules of statutory interpretation," but that [s]everal courts have allowed recovery on only a per-call basis, and [the plaintiff] cites no cases explicitly allowing for separate recoveries under the TCPA for multiple violations during the same call. As noted above, the statute allows "[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" to bring "(A) an action based on a violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation, or (B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater," or both. § 227(c)(5). We believe that this language unambiguously allows for statutory damages on only a per-call basis. The term "each such violation" in subsection (B) refers to an antecedent noun. [The plaintiff] argues that this term refers to the noun phrase "a violation of the regulations" in subsection (A). Subsections (A) and (B), however, are two distinct prongs of the statute, one governing injunctive relief and the other governing money damages. For good reason, Congress may have intended to grant courts the power to enjoin each individual violation of each component of the regulations while at the same time allowing statutory damages to be awarded only once per call. [this is where they played the word games] We therefore believe that, in interpreting the damages provision, we properly look back to any relevant introductory language rather than language in a separate subsection governing the entirely different avenue of injunctive relief. When we turn to the introductory statutory language, the first standalone noun we encounter, looking back from "each such violation," is "call," and indeed a specific type of call, namely a "telephone call in violation of the regulations." Contrary to the suggestion of the Ohio Court of Appeals, "each such violation" cannot refer to the phrase "in violation of the regulations," because this phrase is not a noun but a prepositional phrase modifying the noun "call." Therefore, the term "each such violation" must refer to "telephone call in violation of the regulations," and damages are awardable on a per-call basis.
But even this court had to allow recovery for separate violations of § 227(b) and § 227(c). However there remains a lot of work to be done to hold telemarketers accountable for each violation of the law. Worse courts try to prevent recovery of state and federal telemarketing laws!
Would you like a free case review? Do you have a question or a telemarketing, debt collection, or bankruptcy case that would make a great blog article? We might even review your pro-se complaint or motion in a blog post. Email peter@nwdebtresolution.com and/or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com and we may answer it for everyone!
Are telemarketers harassing you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana? My Washington State TCPA plaintiff law practice can help, just give us a call at 206-800-6000 or email peter@nwdebtresolution.com.
The thoughts, opinions and musings of this blog are those of Peter Schneider, a consumer advocate and Washington State plaintiff's TCPA attorney at Northwest Debt Resolution, LLC. They are just that, his thoughts, opinions and musings and should be treated as such. They are not legal advice. If you are looking to file a lawsuit for TCPA violations and unwanted calls please contact me for a consultation.
Comments