Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

CEB Prac. Guide § 2B.32: Penalties

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In Wakefield v. ViSalus, Inc., No. 21-35201, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 29228 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022), the Court of Appeals held that aggregation of the TCPA’s penalties to $925 million raised due process concerns. ViSalus last argues that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires a reduction of the $925,220,000 statutory damages award. HN8 Whether a damages… Read More

In Golan v., Inc., No. 17-3156, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21015 (8th Cir. July 16, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reduced an aggregate TCPA verdict on due process grounds. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Leininger and the other defendants. The district court entered judgment against ccAdvertising based on its prior grant… Read More

In Lucas v. Total Security Vision, Inc., 2018 WL 4519896 (S.D.Ohio), 4 (S.D.Ohio, 2018), Judge Bowman agreed that “excessive fines” was not an appropriate affirmative defense in a TCPA case. Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendants’ constitutional arguments that TCPA damages are an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 32, ¶32). This Court previously agreed in another case filed by Plaintiff. See… Read More

In Cunningham v., No. 16-cv-761-jdp2017, WL 3055506 (D.Wis. July 18, 2017), Judge Peterson said how to calculate TCPA damages where each call violates multiple statutory provisions of the TCPA. Default establishes defendants' liability for the TCPA violations alleged in Cunningham's complaint, so the analysis must next turn to damages. The TCPA allows for $500 in damages for each violation of… Read More

In Golan v. Veritas Entertainment, LLC, 2017 WL 2861671 (E.D. Mo. 2017), Judge Webber held that there could be due process limitations on the amount of damages recoverable in a TCPA class action. In their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Damages [ECF No. 239], Plaintiffs ask the Court to determine the amount of damages to be… Read More

In Morgan v. Branson Vacation & Travel, LLC, 2013 WL 5532228 (W.D.Okla. 2013), Judge Cauthron granted partial summary judgment on a TCPA claim, finding that ‘good faith’ was no defense to the claim. It is undisputed that Branson placed at least 37 calls to the 6743 number and that those calls were made with an automatic dialing system subject to… Read More

In Newman v. GM Financial, Judge Sabraw issued an Order Denying Preliminary Approval rejecting a proposed TCPA class settlement in part on the basis that disparately situated classmembers with different damages claims would obtain the same settlement sums under the class settlement and, due to the claims-made procedure, it was unclear what that sum would be anyway. A class action settlement may be… Read More

We had hoped the issue would be addressed by the Supreme Court (as to RESPA) in Edwards v. First American Corp. 610 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 2010), but SCOTUS dismissed cert. as improvidently granted.  So, the district court in Smith v. Microsoft Corp. 2012 WL 2975712 (S.D.Cal. 2012) addressed the issue whether a TCPA Plaintiff who otherwise had suffered no… Read More

In First Nat. Collection Bureau, Inc. v. Walker,  --- S.W.3d ----, 2011 WL 2716778 (Tex. App. 2011), the Texas Court of Appeal affirmed a $147,000 jury verdict against a debt collector based on willful violations of the TCPA.  The facts were as follows: Walker filed this lawsuit on June 30, 2008. In her live pleading, Walker contended FNCB made calls… Read More