Opinion ID: 1372921
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Damages Available Under the TCPA

Text: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act instructs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promulgate regulations concerning the need to protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(1). Pursuant to this directive, the FCC has promulgated regulations prohibiting telemarketers from placing telephone calls to residential telephone subscribers without following certain procedures. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d). [3] In addition to providing for enforcement by state attorneys general, 47 U.S.C. § 227(f), the TCPA creates a private right of action for enforcement of these regulations: 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 of a State bring in an appropriate court of that State (A) an action based on a violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation, (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 (C) both such actions. It shall be an affirmative defense in any action brought under this paragraph that the defendant has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection. If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. § 227(c)(5). [4] The amount of Charvat's claim is based on the statutory-damages provisions of the TCPA and the CSPA. In his complaint, Charvat asserts that he is entitled to damages for 186 violations made during ten telephone calls: 63 violations of the TCPA and 123 violations of the CSPA. Based on these violations, his prayer for relief asserts statutory treble damages of $1500 for each TCPA violation, § 227(c)(5), and statutory damages of $200 for each CSPA violation, Ohio Rev.Code § 1345.09(B). If Charvat could recover on a per-violation basis, as he argues, his total possible damages would be approximately $94,500 under the TCPA and $24,600 under the CSPA, for a total of $119,100. The district court found that both the TCPA and the CSPA limit damages to one award per call after the first call, for an amount in controversy of $15,300. It is the potential $94,500 in TCPA damages, however, that is driving the amount in controversy. Therefore, if we conclude that the TCPA limits damages to one award of damages per call, for a total of $15,000 in TCPA damages, we need not consider the limit of damages under the CSPA, because, even assuming the full $24,600 sought under the CSPA, it would be clear to a legal certainty that Charvat never could have recovered an amount greater than $75,000. [5] For that reason, we first consider the limits of statutory damages under the TCPA. [6]
We first note that the TCPA does not limit damages to those incurred after, but not during, the first call. 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 an action for statutory damages for each such violation. § 227(c)(5). We find this language unambiguous. The requirement of being a person who has received more than one telephone call is merely a threshold requirement that, once met, allows recovery for each call. Nowhere does the language indicate that such a person may recover damages for each such violation only after the first phone call. Even if the statute were ambiguous, we would conclude that providing recovery for violations during the first phone call furthers the purpose of the statute, to prevent consumers from receiving unwanted telemarketing calls. Although Congress may have intended to prevent multiple phone calls, requiring that the regulations be satisfied in the first phone call furthers that goal. For example, the regulations require that telemarketers provide their name, the name of the entity on whose behalf they are calling, and telephone number, presumably for the purpose of allowing the consumer to make sure that the consumer's request to be put on a do-not-call list is honored. When a first call violating these requirements is followed by a second call also violating the regulations, the statute authorizes damages for both violations.
The district court additionally concluded that 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 argues that the district court misinterpreted § 227(c)(5) and misapplied the rules of statutory interpretation, and he urges us to follow the dissent in Charvat v. Colorado Prime, Inc., No. 97APG09-1277, 1998 WL 634922 (Ohio Ct.App. Sept. 17, 1998). [7] Several courts, however, have allowed recovery on only a per-call basis, Colorado Prime, 1998 WL 634922, at ; Charvat v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, No. 2:07-cv-1000, 2008 WL 5274090, at  (S.D.Ohio Dec.16, 2008); Worsham v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 138 Md.App. 487, 772 A.2d 868, 876 n. 5 (2001); Szefczek v. Hillsborough Beacon, 286 N.J.Super. 247, 668 A.2d, 1099, 1110 (1995), and Charvat 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. Charvat 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. 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 stand-alone 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, see Colorado Prime, 1998 WL 634922, at , 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. [8] The relevant regulation confirms our analysis. Section 64.1200(d) states, No person or entity shall initiate any call for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d). It then lists the minimum standards for these procedures, including maintenance of a written do-not-call policy, training of personnel, and recording of do-not-call requests. Id. The violation of the regulations is therefore the initiation of the phone call without having implemented the minimum procedures. Because, read in context, the statute and regulations focus on the telephone call itself, we conclude that the district court did not err in holding that Charvat cannot collect statutory damages on a per-violation basis under the TCPA. Because of this limitation on damages under the TCPA, it is clear to a legal certainty that Charvat cannot collect in excess of $75,000. Diversity jurisdiction is therefore not present.