Recent Decision from District of Oregon Denying Enhanced Damages Underscores Vast Liability Exposure Under the TCPA

28 June 2019 Consumer Class Defense Counsel Blog
Author(s): Jaikaran Singh Michael D. Leffel

Businesses that communicate with consumers through telemarketing calls, text messages or faxes to residential telephone lines, cellular telephones, or fax machines, are likely familiar with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”).  If not, they should be.  The TCPA allows for actual damages or statutory damages ranging between $500 per violation and trebled damages up to $1,500 per violation for willful or knowing violations.  With the proliferation of TCPA class actions in recent years, even for businesses who think they have received an appropriate level of consent to reach out to particular consumers, this strict liability statute has become infamous for routinely generating uncapped statutory damages awards and class settlements in the tens of millions of dollars or more, even when a violation is accidental.

This week, a decision out of the District of Oregon, in Wakefield v. ViSalus Inc., highlights the significant exposure and at times draconian nature of liability under the TCPA.  After a three-day trial in April, the jury found that health supplement marketer ViSalus had made 1,850,440 robocalls to residential and cellular phone lines in violation of the TCPA.  At $500 per violation, ViSalus faced a minimum statutory damages award of more than $925 million.  In addition, Wakefield sought enhanced damages of at least 1.2 times and up to triple damages of more than $2.7 billion arguing the company willfully violated the law. ViSalus argued that it did not willfully violate the TCPA because it had, apparently mistakenly, believed it obtained valid written consent from consumers before the FCC imposed new and stricter consent requirements in October 2013.

In a decision earlier this week, District Judge Michael H. Simon denied Wakefield’s request for enhanced statutory damages finding that a minimum statutory damages award of just over $925 million was high enough.  In a six-page opinion and order, Judge Simon held that “the circumstances of this case do not call for the imposition of enhanced damages.”  Stating the obvious in light of the plaintiff’s request for more, the Court noted “the minimum statutory damages award in this case exceeds $925 million dollars, and Plaintiff cannot credibly argue that this amount of damages would be trivial to Defendant or insufficient to deter unlawful conduct by others.”   

As such, the Court found that the deterrent and punitive effect of such a large award obviated the need to decide whether ViSalus willfully violated the TCPA, a determination that the Court side-stepped finding “[t]he damage award in this case of more than $925 million is more than sufficient to accomplish the purposes of the TCPA, and Defendant has stopped making the type of violative calls at issue in this case.”

In sum, while the Court, apparently somewhat sympathetic to Defendant, refused to award enhanced statutory damages, the decision, as a practical matter, was a relatively small victory for ViSalus who still faces a significant liability finding for minimum statutory damages of almost one billion dollars, when the company thought it had the necessary consent.  This case, like others, reminds us of the vast statutory liability exposure presented by the TCPA and the need for companies affected by the statute to take preventative steps in their consumer contact programs, including routinely reviewing and updating their protocols with changing law.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services