TCPA Damages and Lawsuits: Penalties, Settlements (2026)

A Telephone Consumer Protection Act violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) can carry actual monetary loss or $500 in statutory damages per violation, whichever is greater, and a court may, in its discretion, increase the award to as much as three times that amount if it finds the violation willful or knowing. The do-not-call action in § 227(c)(5) allows actual loss or up to $500 per violation instead. Because each contact typically counts separately, TCPA class actions can reach tens of millions of dollars.

This article goes deeper into the damages and litigation side of the TCPA introduced in recordinglaw.com's TCPA overview. It explains how courts and defendants count "per violation," summarizes real recent settlements, and covers the FCC's current rulemaking posture as of September 2026.

Statutory Damages Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)

The TCPA's private right of action, at 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), lets a person sue in an appropriate court for a violation of the calling, texting, and fax rules in § 227(b). The statute allows recovery of actual monetary loss from the violation, or $500 in damages for that violation, whichever amount is greater. If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the statute or the FCC's regulations, it may, in its discretion, increase the damages award to an amount not more than three times the amount available (actual loss or $500, whichever is greater), which means up to $1,500 per violation when the base is $500. Violations of the do-not-call provisions in § 227(c) carry a separate private right of action in § 227(c)(5) for a person who received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the FCC's do-not-call regulations. That provision works differently: it allows actual monetary loss or "up to $500" per violation, whichever is greater, so $500 is a ceiling the court applies rather than a fixed amount, and a court may likewise increase the award up to three times that amount for knowing or willful violations. Section 227(c)(5) also gives the defendant an affirmative defense if it established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent do-not-call violations; § 227(b)(3) has no equivalent defense.

Text messages add a further limit on the do-not-call action. In Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), the Seventh Circuit held that "§ 227(c)(5) does not permit plaintiffs to sue for the receipt of unwanted texts," and said it is not bound by the FCC's interpretation that treats texts as calls, citing McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025). The ruling binds federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. The opinion notes that other circuits have treated texts as calls in cases brought under § 227(b), a different provision, so a text-based claim depends on both the provision and the court. For more on the decision, see the Seventh Circuit text-message ruling.

How "Per Violation" Is Counted

Courts generally treat each individual call or text message as a separate violation for damages purposes, not each phone number contacted or each business relationship. A single automated dialing campaign that places 10,000 calls to numbers that never gave consent can create statutory exposure ranging from $5 million (at $500 per call) to $15 million (at $1,500 per call), before any consideration of actual harm. This per-call, per-text counting is the mechanical reason TCPA class-action settlements can reach eight or nine figures even when no individual class member suffered a large financial loss: the aggregate exposure is the statutory minimum multiplied by the number of contacts, and defendants typically settle for a figure well below full statutory exposure to avoid the risk of a larger judgment and the cost of litigating class certification.

Not every mass-calling campaign automatically becomes a class action. Plaintiffs still have to show that an autodialer or prerecorded voice was used as the TCPA defines those terms, following the U.S. Supreme Court's narrowing of "automatic telephone dialing system" in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021), and that class members share common proof of a lack of consent. Defendants frequently contest both points, and settlement values are typically negotiated well under the full statutory maximum once litigation risk, the cost of identifying class members, and the strength of consent records are weighed.

Recent TCPA Settlements and Rulings (2025-2026)

Real settlements show how the per-violation math plays out in practice. Two recent examples, with case status as of September 2026:

SiriusXM: $28 million. In Campbell v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 2:22-cv-2261 (C.D. Ill.), plaintiffs alleged SiriusXM placed telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry and to people who had asked the company to stop calling. SiriusXM agreed to a $28 million settlement fund, which the court preliminarily approved in November 2025. The court entered a final approval order and final judgment on July 6, 2026, and a notice of appeal was filed on August 27, 2026, so check the current docket for the timing of payments. More than 427,000 claims had been filed as of April 2026, for an estimated payout of roughly $40 per claimant, illustrating how a large class divides even a large fund into modest individual amounts while still representing significant aggregate corporate exposure.

Gen Digital (Norton / LifeLock): $9.95 million. In Jackson v. Gen Digital Incorporated, No. 2:25-cv-00535 (D. Ariz.), the plaintiff alleged Gen Digital, the parent of Norton and LifeLock, placed artificial or prerecorded voice calls about LifeLock or Norton accounts to people who did not hold such accounts. Gen Digital agreed to a $9.95 million settlement. The class notice estimated payments between $200 and $625 per claimant depending on participation, and the final approval motion, based on about 10,750 claims, projected more than $585 per claimant. The court granted final approval and dismissed the case with prejudice on July 14, 2026.

These settlements share a pattern: the company did not admit liability, the eventual settlement fund was a fraction of full statutory exposure at $500-to-$1,500 per contact, and the case resolved before trial. That pattern is typical of TCPA litigation generally, not unique to these two companies.

The FCC's Rulemaking Role and the One-to-One Consent Rule

Congress gave the FCC authority to write and update the TCPA's implementing rules, currently found at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, including the definition of the consent required for telemarketing calls and texts. In December 2023, the FCC adopted a rule that would have required "one-to-one" consent, meaning a single written consent could authorize calls from only one seller at a time, with the resulting call or text limited to a subject "logically and topically" related to whatever interaction produced the consent. The Eleventh Circuit vacated that part of the FCC's order in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025), decided January 24, 2025, holding that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority because the new consent restrictions conflict with the ordinary statutory meaning of "prior express consent."

Following the vacatur, the FCC removed the invalidated one-to-one consent language from its rules and reinstated the pre-2023 definition of prior express written consent in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9), consistent with the agency's broader deregulatory "Delete, Delete, Delete" proceeding. As of September 2026, there is no one-to-one consent requirement in effect. A single written consent that clearly and unmistakably authorizes calls or texts from a business, including on behalf of named affiliates or partners if the disclosure says so, can still satisfy prior express written consent under the restored standard. Because FCC rulemaking in this area has changed more than once in the last three years, businesses and consumers should confirm the current text of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 rather than rely on any single year's summary, including this one.

Documenting a Violation and Where to Report It

A consumer building a record of a possible TCPA violation should save the caller ID number or sender information for each call or text, screenshots of text messages, voicemail recordings where available, and a log of the date, time, and content of each contact. It also helps to note whether and when the number was added to the National Do Not Call Registry, whether the consumer ever gave the caller a phone number and for what purpose, and whether the consumer asked the caller to stop and when.

Complaints can be filed with the FCC at consumercomplaints.fcc.gov (choosing the "unwanted calls" category), with the FTC at reportfraud.ftc.gov or through the Do Not Call Registry's own complaint form at donotcall.gov/report.html, and with a state attorney general's consumer protection division. These regulatory complaints do not themselves pay the consumer money; the TCPA's per-violation recovery comes through the private right of action in § 227(b)(3) (actual loss or $500 per violation, and up to three times that amount if willful or knowing) or § 227(c)(5) (actual loss or up to $500 per violation, up to three times that amount if willful or knowing, and not available for text messages in the Seventh Circuit), typically pursued with the help of a licensed attorney who can review the call records, the consent history, and whether the facts support an individual claim or an existing class action. Timing matters as well. The TCPA was enacted in December 1991, after 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) set a default rule that a civil action arising under a federal statute enacted after December 1, 1990 "may not be commenced later than 4 years after the cause of action accrues," so a TCPA claim is subject to that four-year deadline. This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not predict the outcome of any specific case.

Disclaimer

This article explains TCPA damages, per-violation counting, and FCC rulemaking as general legal information current as of September 2026. It is not legal advice and does not predict the outcome of any specific claim. Settlement figures and FCC rules described here can change; verify current terms before relying on them, and consult a licensed attorney in your state for advice about your situation.

Related articles

• TCPA overview: robocalls, texts, and the Do Not Call Registry
• US recording laws by state

---

Last updated: September 2026. Case and settlement figures reflect their status as of this date; class action settlements remain subject to court approval until final, so confirm current status before relying on them.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much can I sue for under the TCPA?

Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), statutory damages are $500 per violation, or your actual monetary loss if higher, and a court may, in its discretion, increase the award to not more than three times that amount if it finds the caller acted willfully or knowingly. Do-not-call claims under § 227(c)(5) allow actual loss or up to $500 per violation, subject to a reasonable-procedures defense. A TCPA claim must generally be filed within four years under 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a).

What counts as one 'violation' under the TCPA?

Courts generally count each individual call or text as a separate violation, not each phone number or business relationship. A campaign of thousands of calls can therefore create statutory exposure in the millions of dollars even before considering actual damages.

Is the FCC's one-to-one consent rule still in effect?

No. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the rule in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025), and the FCC subsequently removed the vacated language from 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. As of September 2026, the pre-2023 prior express written consent standard applies.

What is an example of a large recent TCPA settlement?

Recent examples include a $28 million settlement by SiriusXM in Campbell v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 2:22-cv-2261 (C.D. Ill.), and a $9.95 million settlement by Gen Digital in Jackson v. Gen Digital Incorporated, No. 2:25-cv-00535 (D. Ariz.). Settlement size varies significantly by case.

How do I report a robocall or unwanted text?

You can file a complaint with the FCC at consumercomplaints.fcc.gov, with the FTC at reportfraud.ftc.gov or donotcall.gov/report.html, and with your state attorney general's office. These agencies do not pay individual damages; a private lawsuit under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) or § 227(c)(5) is the path to statutory damages.

Do I need to prove the company used an autodialer to win a TCPA claim?

For claims based on the autodialer restrictions in § 227(b)(1), yes. Following Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021), equipment must be able to store or produce numbers using a random or sequential number generator to qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system, which has narrowed some claims and shifted focus to the separate prerecorded-voice and do-not-call theories.

Does the disclosure that a call 'may be recorded' matter to a TCPA damages claim?

Not directly. That disclosure relates to state recording-consent law and the federal Wiretap Act, not the TCPA's calling and texting restrictions. See recordinglaw.com's TCPA overview and its US recording laws by state guide for how those separate rules work.