47 U.S.C. § 227
TCPA: robocalls, texts, and junk faxes at $500 a violation
A federal claim in United States district courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act is the rare federal statute with damages set per event and no cap on how many events you can string together. $500 a call, tripled to $1,500 if the violation was willful, multiplied across a calling campaign, is how a routine marketing programme turns into nine-figure exposure.
Two developments define the current landscape. In 2021 the Supreme Court narrowed what counts as an autodialer so sharply that a large share of the docket disappeared. In 2025 it freed district courts from having to follow the FCC's interpretations, reopening questions that had been settled for a decade.
What the claim is
Someone called, texted, or faxed you without the consent the statute requires.
The main prohibitions:
- Calls or texts to a cell phone using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without prior express consent — and prior express written consent where the message is marketing.
- Prerecorded calls to residential lines without consent.
- Unsolicited fax advertisements, which still generate substantial litigation.
- Calls to numbers on the Do Not Call registry.
A text message counts as a call. That single interpretive point is the foundation of most modern TCPA practice.
Where the right comes from
An express private right of action, with the damages figure written into the statute itself. A person may bring "an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater," along with injunctive relief.
What a plaintiff has to prove
Elements vary by subsection. For the common cell-phone claim:
- A call or text to a cellular number,
- using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice,
- without prior express consent — written consent if the content is marketing.
Element two is where the statute changed. In Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021) the Court held that to qualify as an autodialer, equipment must have the capacity to "store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator." Equipment that stores a list of customer numbers and dials them is not an autodialer.
That reading eliminated a large fraction of claims at a stroke. What survives are prerecorded-voice claims, Do Not Call claims, fax claims, and revoked-consent claims — none of which depend on the autodialer definition.
Consent is the defendant's burden to prove, not the plaintiff's to negate.
How long you have to file
Four years, under the federal catch-all limitations period for statutes enacted after 1990. The TCPA was enacted in 1991, so it qualifies.
Each call, text, or fax is a separate violation with its own accrual date. The clock is per message, which is why long calling campaigns produce claims stretching across years.
What has to happen before you file
Nothing. No agency complaint, no exhaustion, no notice.
But one procedural rule changed fundamentally in 2025, and it is the most important development on this page. Under a jurisdictional statute governing review of FCC orders, district courts had long been treated as bound by the FCC's interpretations of the TCPA — a party who disagreed had to have challenged the order directly in a court of appeals, before enforcement.
In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. (2025) the Supreme Court held that statute does not bind district courts in TCPA enforcement and civil proceedings. District courts must now independently determine what the statute means, giving FCC interpretations only appropriate respect.
The practical effect is large. Questions the FCC had settled — whether an online fax service is a "telephone facsimile machine," how consent may be revoked, what counts as an advertisement — are open again in district court.
Who can be sued — and who cannot
The caller, texter, or sender. Also the business on whose behalf the calls were made, under ordinary agency principles — a seller can be vicariously liable for a telemarketer's conduct, which is what makes these cases worth bringing.
Standing is generally satisfied by receiving the unwanted communication: an unwanted call or text is a concrete injury of the kind the courts recognise, unlike the bare procedural violations that fail under the concrete-harm doctrine in credit reporting and debt collection.
There is a split on the single message. The Eleventh Circuit held that receiving one unwanted text is not a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing. Other circuits disagree. Where you file can decide whether a one-text case exists at all.
Government contractors acting as agents may claim a limited derivative immunity, though the doctrine is narrow.
Common defenses
Prior express consent — or prior express written consent for marketing — which is the primary defense and turns on the quality of the defendant's records.
Not an autodialer, after Duguid.
Consent was never revoked, or revocation was not communicated through a reasonable method.
Not an advertisement, for fax and marketing claims.
Established business relationship, and opt-out notice compliance for faxes.
Wrong number and reassigned number disputes — the person who consented is not the person who answered.
Challenges to FCC interpretations, now available in district court after McLaughlin.
No standing, for single-message claims in the circuits that permit the argument.
One historical note that gets misstated: in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020) the Court struck down a 2015 exception that had permitted robocalls to collect government-backed debt, holding it an unconstitutional content-based restriction — and then severed it, leaving the broader robocall ban fully intact. The ban was not struck down.
What the claim pays
$500 per violation, or actual monetary loss if greater.
Up to $1,500 per violation for a willful or knowing violation — trebling, and it is discretionary with the court rather than automatic.
Injunctive relief.
No fee-shifting. The TCPA contains no attorney's fee provision, which distinguishes it from almost every other consumer statute on this site. Fees in class actions come out of the common fund.
Jury trial available.
The arithmetic is what drives the docket: a campaign of 100,000 calls carries $50 million in exposure before any trebling. That is why these cases settle, and why the autodialer definition mattered so much.
What people get wrong
"Any system that stores and auto-dials numbers is an autodialer." Not after Duguid — it must use a random or sequential number generator.
"District courts have to follow every FCC ruling on the TCPA." Not after McLaughlin.
"The Supreme Court struck down the robocall ban." No. Only the government-debt exception was struck, and it was severed.
"I can recover attorney's fees." The TCPA has no fee-shifting provision.
"I gave my number once, so they can text me forever." Consent can be revoked, and marketing requires written consent obtained for that purpose.
"A text isn't a call." For this statute it is.
"$500 is the most I can get." It is $500 per message, up to $1,500 each if willful.
Where it came from
The TCPA passed in 1991, when the problem was fax machines burning through paper and dinner-hour telemarketing. The technology it was written for barely exists; the statute now governs text-message marketing at industrial scale.
Later changes came mostly from the FCC and from Congress at the edges: the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 built out the fax opt-out rules; a 2012 FCC order imposed the prior express written consent requirement for marketing robocalls; and the TRACED Act of 2019 raised penalties and mandated call authentication technology to fight spoofing.
The two decisions that define present-day practice are Duguid, which shrank the statute's reach by reading its definition literally, and McLaughlin, which unsettled a decade of agency interpretation by removing the deference district courts had been required to give it.
Common questions
How much can I recover for an illegal robocall or text?
$500 per call or text, or your actual monetary loss if greater. If the violation was willful or knowing, a court may increase that to as much as $1,500 per message.
What is the deadline for a TCPA claim?
Four years from the violation. Each call, text, or fax is a separate violation with its own clock.
Does the TCPA still cover calls from a system that dials from a customer list?
Generally not as an autodialer claim. After Facebook v. Duguid, equipment must use a random or sequential number generator to qualify. Claims based on prerecorded voices, the Do Not Call registry, or revoked consent do not depend on that definition.
Can I recover attorney's fees under the TCPA?
No. The statute has no fee-shifting provision, which sets it apart from most consumer protection statutes.
Do I have to complain to the FCC first?
No. There is no administrative exhaustion requirement. You may file suit directly.