Skip to content
Coverage

Unwanted calls

US Telephone Consumer Protection Act

NationalUSRead off primary law

United States (federal)

Rule id
calls.us-tcpa
Version
1.0.0
In force from
December 20, 1991
Last read against its sources
August 5, 2026
Countries bound
United States

In plain language

What this regime says.

The TCPA gives you USD 500 for each unwanted prerecorded call, autodialled call to a mobile, junk fax, or do-not-call violation — trebled to USD 1,500 at the court's discretion where the violation was wilful or knowing. There is no cap and no need to prove loss. The catch is identifying who called.

Who is covered

Anyone in the United States who received the call, on a mobile or a residential landline. You do not have to be the account holder or the intended recipient — a wrong-number robocall to you is your claim, not the intended recipient's.

What you get

USD 500 per violating call, trebled to USD 1,500 in the court's discretion for wilful or knowing violations, plus an injunction. Small-claims courts in most states will hear it, and the statute needs no proof of damage.

Where claims go wrong

  • Suing on a single do-not-call violation. § 227(c)(5) requires more than one call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity. One call is not a case.
  • Building the claim on "they used an autodialler". After Facebook v. Duguid that argument mostly fails. Lead with the prerecorded voice, or with the do-not-call registry.
  • Never identifying the caller. The number is spoofed; the seller is the defendant. Stay on the line and get the company name.
  • Waiting more than four years. Every call is its own claim with its own four-year clock, so an old campaign quietly dies call by call.
  • Assuming treble damages are automatic. They are discretionary, and the court has to be persuaded the violation was wilful or knowing.
The official claim route

Authority

Every citation,
with its pinpoint.

A claim that cites “EU law” gets filed. A claim that cites Article 7(1)(c) gets answered. These are the exact coordinates this entry rests on.
  1. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) — private right of action, USD 500 per violation, trebled in the court's discretionTelephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227URL verified 2026-08-05§ 227(b)(3)
  2. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) — autodialled or prerecorded calls to a mobile numberTelephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227URL verified 2026-08-05§ 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)
  3. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B) — artificial or prerecorded voice to a residential lineTelephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227URL verified 2026-08-05§ 227(b)(1)(B)
  4. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) — unsolicited advertisements sent to a fax machineTelephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227URL verified 2026-08-05§ 227(b)(1)(C)
  5. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) — do-not-call private right, requiring more than one call in any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entityTelephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227URL verified 2026-08-05§ 227(c)(5)
  6. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) — no telephone solicitation to a number on the national registryCode of Federal Regulations, Title 47URL verified 2026-08-05§ 64.1200(c)(2)
  7. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) — company-specific do-not-call proceduresCode of Federal Regulations, Title 47URL verified 2026-08-05§ 64.1200(d)
  8. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10) — revocation by any reasonable means, honoured within ten business daysCode of Federal Regulations, Title 47URL verified 2026-08-05§ 64.1200(a)(10)
  9. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9) — definition of prior express written consentCode of Federal Regulations, Title 47URL verified 2026-08-05§ 64.1200(f)(9)
  10. 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) — four-year federal catch-all limitation periodUnited States Code, Title 28URL verified 2026-08-05§ 1658(a)
  11. Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021)Supreme Court of the United States, No. 19-511 (1 April 2021)URL verified 2026-08-05
  12. Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. 24 Jan. 2025)United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh CircuitURL verified 2026-08-05

Sources

Where a figure is indexed, converted or published by a regulator rather than fixed in the instrument, the provenance is recorded separately. Anything marked as a modelled estimate is exactly that — a model, not a statutory number.

What it imposes

Clocks, defences and the ladder.

A rule module builds these while it evaluates, because a limitation period depends on which forum is open to you. What follows is the structure this regime produces — deliberately with no dates and no figures, because those belong to your facts rather than to the law.

The clocks it starts

  • Four-year federal limitation period (28 U.S.C. § 1658)Fatal if missedThe TCPA has no limitation period of its own, so the four-year federal catch-all in 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) applies. Accrual is per call: each call is its own cause of action with its own four-year clock. The date shown is when your MOST RECENT call falls out of time — everything earlier expires before it.28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) — four-year federal catch-all limitation period — § 1658(a)Limitation period
  • Your earliest logged call falls out of time on this dateCalls drop out of the claim one by one. If you are near this date and the campaign was large, the value of waiting is negative.28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) — four-year federal catch-all limitation period — § 1658(a)Limitation period

What it entitles you to, beyond money

  • An order that they stop§ 227(b)(3)(A) and § 227(c)(5)(A) both provide an action to enjoin the violation, in addition to damages. In practice a credible demand letter quoting the per-call figure achieves this without a court, because the caller can multiply too.§ 227(b)(3)

What the other side will say

Each of these is a refusal this regime lets a counterparty attempt, paired with the answer to it. Reading them before you write is worth more than any amount of polish on the letter itself.

"It was not us, it was a lead generator"

high likelihood

We did not place that call. It was made by an independent marketing partner and we are not responsible for their conduct.

What answers it

The TCPA reaches calls made "on behalf of" a seller, and the FCC has long held that a seller can be vicariously liable on ordinary federal agency principles — actual authority, apparent authority, or ratification. Ask, in writing, for the identity of the lead generator, the contract governing the campaign, and the record of the consent they say they obtained for your number. A seller that took the sale but disclaims the call has to explain how it accepted the benefit without ratifying the conduct.

"You gave consent on a website"

high likelihood

Our records show you consented to receive marketing calls when you filled in a form on [some website].

What answers it

Then ask for the record. Prior express written consent has to be a signed agreement, identifying the seller, disclosing that signing authorises automated or prerecorded marketing calls to a designated number, and disclosing that signing is not a condition of purchase. Demand the actual capture: the URL, the timestamp, the IP address, the exact disclosure text shown, and the number entered. Very often the record is a purchased lead with none of this, or a number that is not yours.

Facebook v. Duguid — "our platform is not an ATDS"

high likelihood

Our dialling platform does not use a random or sequential number generator, so under Facebook v. Duguid it is not an automatic telephone dialing system and § 227(b)(1)(A) does not apply.

What answers it

On the ATDS limb this is very often right, and it is why you should not build the claim there. Redirect: § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) is violated by an artificial or prerecorded voice with no ATDS at all, and the § 227(c) do-not-call claim has no ATDS element either. Ask them to confirm in writing that no prerecorded or artificial voice was used on any of the listed calls — a denial they have to stand behind is worth having, and it is frequently false.

Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021)

"You only got one call, so there is no do-not-call claim"

high likelihood

The do-not-call provisions require more than one call in twelve months. You have alleged one.

What answers it

On the § 227(c) claim this is a correct reading of § 227(c)(5) and you should not fight it. But it is not a defence to § 227(b): a single prerecorded or artificial-voice marketing call, or a single autodialled call to a mobile without prior express written consent, violates § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) on its own and carries the same USD 500. Plead the § 227(b) count and let them keep arguing about the other one.

47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) — do-not-call private right, requiring more than one call in any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity — § 227(c)(5)

"We were trying to reach someone else"

medium likelihood

This number was previously held by our customer. We had consent; we simply did not know it had been reassigned.

What answers it

Good faith about a reassigned number is not a defence once you have told them. Every call after your first "stop" or "wrong number" is knowingly made to a non-consenting party, and is the strongest part of your claim. Record the date you first told them.

"We have an established business relationship with you"

medium likelihood

You are an existing customer, so the do-not-call rules do not apply to us.

What answers it

The established-business-relationship exemption to the national registry is time-limited and defeasible: it runs 18 months from your last transaction, or three months from an inquiry, and it evaporates the moment you ask them to stop. It has never been a defence to the separate prohibition on prerecorded marketing calls without prior express written consent.

A defence built on the vacated one-to-one consent rule

medium likelihood

Consent obtained by our lead-generation partner complies with the FCC's one-to-one consent requirement / the FCC's one-to-one rule shows the standard we had to meet.

What answers it

Whoever raises this is out of date in either direction. The one-to-one consent rule was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC on 24 January 2025 and the FCC removed the text from 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 in August 2025. It is not the standard and never took effect. The operative test is the pre-2023 definition of prior express written consent in § 64.1200(f)(9): a signed agreement authorising THE SELLER, disclosing that automated or prerecorded marketing calls will be made to the designated number, and stating that signing is not a condition of purchase. Ask for the document.

Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. 24 Jan. 2025)

Where to take it next

  1. Written revocation and demand to the sellerOne letter does two jobs: it revokes consent (so every later call is a clean violation the caller cannot defend) and it puts the per-call figure in front of someone who can multiply. Send it to the company whose product was being sold, not to the dialling agency. Keep proof of sending.Claim directtypically 30 days
  2. Complain to the FCC and the FTCNeither will recover money for you and neither will tell you who called — say that plainly to yourself before you file, so the silence afterwards is not a surprise. What they do is feed the traceback and enforcement machinery whose public output private plaintiffs later use. File at consumercomplaints.fcc.gov and at donotcall.gov. Five minutes each.Regulatortypically 90 daysofficial page
  3. Complain to your state Attorney GeneralState AGs bring the robocall cases the FCC does not, often jointly, and several run their own telemarketing statutes with their own penalties. A state AG complaint is also the route by which a pattern affecting many people gets noticed. Find yours through the National Association of Attorneys General directory.Regulatortypically 90 daysofficial page
  4. Small claims court against a named sellerBinding on themThe TCPA can be brought in state court, and small claims is where most individual TCPA claims that go anywhere actually go: no lawyer needed, filing fees typically USD 30–100, and USD 500 per call adds up quickly inside a small-claims limit. You need a named defendant with an address for service. This is the realistic endgame for an individual claimant.Small claimstypically 120 days
  5. Federal court, with a lawyer, on contingencyWorth considering only where the volume is large, the caller is identified and solvent, or the facts look like a class. TCPA plaintiffs' firms work on contingency and will assess for free. If the caller is unknown, the first step is a John Doe complaint plus a motion for expedited discovery so a subpoena can go to the carrier for call detail records — which is the only reliable way to unmask a spoofed caller, and is not something you can do without a filed case.Courttypically 540 days

Documents

What this regime can produce.

Every one of these is a document you send yourself, in your own name. Duesday never writes to anybody on your behalf and is never anyone’s agent.

The same claim type elsewhere

EU ePrivacy Directive and GDPR (direct marketing)EUSupranational — 30 countriesDirective 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy Directive), Art. 13Confidence: mediumUK Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003GBNational — United KingdomPrivacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, regs. 19–24 and reg. 30Confidence: mediumCanada CASL and the National Do Not Call ListCANational — CanadaCanada's Anti-Spam Legislation, S.C. 2010, c. 23Confidence: mediumConnecticut telephone solicitation statuteUS-CTSub-national — United StatesConn. Gen. Stat. § 42-288aConfidence: lowFlorida Telephone Solicitation ActUS-FLSub-national — United StatesFla. Stat. § 501.059 (Florida Telephone Solicitation Act)Confidence: highIndiana telephone solicitation and autodialer statutesUS-INSub-national — United StatesInd. Code art. 24-4.7 (telephone solicitation) and Ind. Code ch. 24-5-14 (automatic dialing machines)Confidence: lowLouisiana telephone solicitation rulesUS-LASub-national — United StatesLa. R.S. 45:844.11 et seq.Confidence: lowMaryland Telephone Consumer Protection ActUS-MDSub-national — United StatesMd. Code, Com. Law § 14-3201 et seq.Confidence: low

Other rights in the same countries

Alabama security deposit return — Ala. Code § 35-9A-201US-ALSub-national — United StatesAla. Code § 35-9A-201Confidence: mediumAlabama unclaimed property — Ala. Code §§ 35-12-70 to 35-12-99US-ALSub-national — United StatesAla. Code §§ 35-12-70 to 35-12-99Confidence: mediumAlaska security deposit return — Alaska Stat. § 34.03.070US-AKSub-national — United StatesAlaska Stat. § 34.03.070Confidence: mediumAlaska unclaimed property — Alaska Stat. §§ 34.45.110–34.45.780US-AKSub-national — United StatesAlaska Stat. §§ 34.45.110–34.45.780Confidence: mediumArizona security deposit return — A.R.S. § 33-1321US-AZSub-national — United StatesA.R.S. § 33-1321Confidence: highArizona unclaimed property — Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-301 to 44-341US-AZSub-national — United StatesAriz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-301 to 44-341Confidence: mediumArizona surprise out-of-network bill dispute resolution (A.R.S. § 20-3111 et seq.)US-AZSub-national — United StatesA.R.S. § 20-3111 et seq.Confidence: mediumArkansas security deposit return — Ark. Code Ann. § 18-16-306US-ARSub-national — United StatesArk. Code Ann. § 18-16-306Confidence: medium

Does this one reach your facts?

The engine runs every regime that could apply at once and reconciles them, rather than making you guess which page to read.

Run your factsBack to the catalogue

Not a law firm. Not legal advice. You send it yourself. This page describes a law; it is not advice about your situation and no outcome is promised.