Guide
TCPA Lawsuits: Who Files Them and How to Avoid One
What is a TCPA lawsuit?
Short answerA TCPA lawsuit is a private claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, almost always under one of two provisions: § 227(b)(3), for autodialed or prerecorded calls without the required consent, worth actual loss or $500 per violation, whichever is greater; or § 227(c)(5), for more than one telemarketing call in 12 months to a number on the Do Not Call Registry, worth up to $500 per violation. A court can triple either for willful or knowing violations, and suits can be filed in federal or state court.
Checking a whole list? Preview 20 rows of it free →
On this page
Almost every TCPA lawsuit starts the same way: a call or text went to a number that should not have been dialled, to someone who either did not consent, was on the Do Not Call Registry, or makes a living from exactly that mistake. Understanding which of the statute's two private claims a suit is built on tells you most of what you need to know about avoiding one.
The two claims a TCPA suit is built on
| Claim | What it covers | What it is worth |
|---|---|---|
| § 227(b)(3) | Calls made with an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice without the consent the statute requires -- to cell phones, and prerecorded calls to residential lines | Actual loss or $500 per violation, whichever is greater; up to 3x if willful or knowing |
| § 227(c)(5) | More than one telephone solicitation within 12 months to a number on the Do Not Call Registry, by or on behalf of the same entity | Actual loss or up to $500 per violation; up to 3x if willful or knowing |
| § 227(g) | A state attorney general suing over a pattern or practice of violating calls to the state's residents | $500 per violation, trebled if willful; federal court only |
There is no cap on the total, and a plaintiff does not have to prove any loss. States add their own statutes on top: Florida's mini-TCPA carries its own $500 claim and, unlike the federal statute, makes the loser pay the winner's attorney fees. State mini-TCPA laws covers the others.
Who files them
- Ordinary consumers, usually after repeated calls they asked to stop, or texts they never agreed to.
- Class actions. Statutory damages multiply by call and by person, so a campaign that reached thousands of numbers without valid consent can be pleaded as one case on behalf of all of them. It is where the exposure is largest.
- Serial filers. A small population files TCPA claims repeatedly, as a source of income. Their numbers are real, active mobiles, so they pass every validity and line-type check. What identifies them is the court record, which is what a TCPA litigator database is built from.
- State attorneys general, under § 227(g), usually against high-volume operations.
What changed in 2021-2026
The statute has not changed, but the courts' reading of it has, several times, and not all in the same direction. Four rulings matter to anyone reading older advice:
- Facebook v. Duguid (Supreme Court, April 2021) narrowed "autodialer" to equipment with the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator.
- McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson (Supreme Court, June 2025) held that a district court "is not bound by the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA". FCC orders now persuade; they do not bind.
- Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control (Fifth Circuit, February 2026), relying on McLaughlin, held that the statute asks only for prior express consent, oral or written, and rejected the FCC's requirement of written consent for prerecorded telemarketing calls to cell phones. It binds courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi only; the FCC's rule is still in the regulations everywhere else.
- Steidinger v. Blackstone (Seventh Circuit, July 2026) held that the Do Not Call claim in § 227(c)(5) does not reach text messages. At least one district court elsewhere has held that it does.
Build to the strictest reading, not the friendliest circuit
A national list reaches every circuit. A rule one appeals court has rejected is still enforced in the others, and a plaintiff chooses where to file. Written consent and Do Not Call scrubbing for texts remain the safe operating standard.
How to avoid one
Every control below answers one of the claims above. None of them is optional for a team calling or texting at volume.
- Consent you can produce. The FCC's rule, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2), requires prior express written consent for telemarketing calls made to cell phones with an autodialer or a prerecorded voice. Keep the record, with the date and the number it covers, for at least four years.
- Scrub the Do Not Call Registry. § 227(c)(5) gives a caller an affirmative defence if it "has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations". A documented, regular scrub is the core of that defence. The Do Not Call Registry covers the schedule and who needs a SAN.
- Honour opt-outs fast. The FCC now requires revocations to be honoured within ten business days. A call after someone said stop is the easiest claim a plaintiff ever pleads.
- Check for reassigned numbers. Consent belongs to the person, not the number. Querying the FCC's Reassigned Numbers Database before calling gives a safe harbour under § 64.1200(m) if it wrongly answers "no".
- Call inside the hours. No solicitation before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. at the called party's location (§ 64.1200(c)(1)), and several states are stricter: see calling hours by state.
- Know the line type. The consent rules for cell phones and landlines are different clauses of § 227(b). A landline or cell phone lookup tells you which rule each number falls under.
- Remove known litigators. None of the controls above identifies the people who sue for a living, because their numbers are valid, active and often properly consented. A litigator scrub removes them before the dialler runs.
What the last one does not do is make a call lawful. A litigator scrub lowers who is likely to sue; it does not replace consent or a Do Not Call scrub. NumberBroom adds a federal Do Not Call Registry check to a signed-in paid scrub, under your own FTC subscription (SAN), included free on lists of up to 1,000 numbers; state lists, your internal list and the 31-day schedule stay yours.
If you have already been sued
Talk to a lawyer who defends TCPA cases, and do it before responding to the plaintiff. The records the controls above produce -- consent with its date, the Registry scrub, the opt-out log, the reassigned-number query -- are what they will ask for first, and whether you can produce them usually decides how the case goes.
Frequently asked questions
How much is a TCPA lawsuit worth?
Per violation, not per case. A § 227(b)(3) claim is worth actual loss or $500, whichever is greater; a § 227(c)(5) Do Not Call claim is worth actual loss or up to $500. Under both, the court may raise the award to not more than three times that amount for a willful or knowing violation. Because every call or message can be a separate violation, the figure that matters is the number of calls multiplied by the number of people called -- which is why a class action is where the real exposure sits. TCPA violations and fines covers the arithmetic and the FTC's separate penalties.
Can someone sue over a single call?
Under § 227(b), yes: each autodialed or prerecorded call made without the required consent is its own violation. Under the Do Not Call provision, no: § 227(c)(5) requires "more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity" to a number on the Registry.
Do text messages count?
Under § 227(b), courts generally treat a text as a call. The Supreme Court described that as undisputed in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez (2016), assumed it without deciding it in Facebook v. Duguid (2021), and the Ninth Circuit held it in Howard v. RNC (January 2026). Under the Do Not Call provision, § 227(c)(5), it is now contested: the Seventh Circuit held in Steidinger v. Blackstone (July 2026) that it "does not permit plaintiffs to sue for the receipt of unwanted texts", while a federal court in Oregon held the opposite in Wilson v. Skopos (2025). Where you are sued now changes the answer.
How long does someone have to file a TCPA lawsuit?
The TCPA sets no deadline of its own, so courts apply the federal four-year catch-all in 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a); the Second Circuit held that in Giovanniello v. ALM Media (2013). In practice, keep consent and scrub records for at least four years after the last call they cover.
Are TCPA lawsuits filed in federal or state court?
Either. The Supreme Court held in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services (2012) that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over private TCPA suits. Suits by a state attorney general under § 227(g) are the exception: those belong exclusively in federal district court.
Do professional plaintiffs win?
Sometimes they lose on standing, and that is fact-specific rather than a rule. In Stoops v. Wells Fargo (W.D. Pa. 2016), a plaintiff who had bought at least 35 prepaid cell phones to file TCPA suits was held to lack standing, because calls she wanted were not the "nuisance and an invasion of privacy" the statute protects against. Most serial filers are not that easy to dismiss, and a caller cannot plan on it. Keeping their numbers off the list is cheaper than litigating standing. See TCPA litigators.
- 47 U.S.C. § 227 -- Restrictions on use of telephone equipment (Cornell LII)
- 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 -- Delivery restrictions (eCFR)
- 28 U.S.C. § 1658 -- Time limitations (Cornell LII)
- Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, 565 U.S. 368 (2012)
- Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021)
- McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025)
- Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, No. 24-20379 (5th Cir. 2026)
- Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. 2026)
- Wilson v. Skopos Financial, No. 6:25-cv-00376 (D. Or. 2025)
- Howard v. Republican National Committee, 164 F.4th 1119 (9th Cir. 2026)
- Giovanniello v. ALM Media, LLC, 726 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013)
- Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 197 F. Supp. 3d 782 (W.D. Pa. 2016)