TCPA Damages and Lawsuits: Penalties, Settlements (2026)

A Telephone Consumer Protection Act violation can carry $500 in statutory damages per call or text, rising to $1,500 if a court finds the violation knowing or willful, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). 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 mid-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 $500 base figure, meaning up to $1,500 per violation. The same $500-to-$1,500 structure applies separately to violations of the do-not-call provisions in § 227(c), through the private right of action created in § 227(c)(5) for a person who received more than one telemarketing call in a 12-month period in violation of the FCC's do-not-call regulations.

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. Three recent, verifiable examples, current as of mid-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; the court originally noticed a final approval hearing for May 2026, though hearing dates in active settlements are subject to change and should be confirmed against the current docket. More than 427,000 claims had been filed as of April 2026, for an estimated payout of roughly $40 per class member, illustrating how a large class divides even a large fund into modest individual amounts while still representing significant aggregate corporate exposure.

Realogy Holdings / Coldwell Banker: $20 million. In Bumpus v. Realogy Holdings Corp., No. 3:19-cv-03309 (N.D. Cal.), a class of roughly 298,000 people alleged that Realogy, then the parent of Coldwell Banker, and affiliated agents made unsolicited cold calls in violation of the TCPA, including calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry and prerecorded messages. Realogy agreed to pay $20 million into a settlement fund, one of the larger TCPA settlements involving a residential real estate brand.

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, with individual payments estimated between $200 and $625 per claimant depending on how many people file valid claims, and a final fairness hearing scheduled for 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 three 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, with an effective date of January 27, 2025. The Eleventh Circuit vacated that rule in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025), decided January 24, 2025, just before the rule's effective date, holding that the FCC's interpretation exceeded the plain meaning of "prior express consent" in the statute.

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 mid-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 (selecting "Unwanted Calls/Texts"), 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 $500-to-$1,500 per-violation recovery comes through the private right of action in § 227(b)(3) or § 227(c)(5), 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. 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 mid-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: July 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.