Happy Friday TCPAWorld! Here’s a quick read for your Friday afternoon.

In Aussieker v. TSHB, LLC, et al., No. 222CV01886DADCKDPS, 2024 WL 870449 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2024), the court agreed with the assigned magistrate judge recommendation against a treble damage award over Plaintiff Mark Aussieker objections.

So as many of you know, a court has the discretion to treble damages in TCPA cases if it finds that the violation was made willfully or knowingly. Courts have long considered defendants’ history and the deterrent effect of awarded damages when contemplating treble damages under the TCPA. And that is exactly what the magistrate considered here when recommending against treble damages.

In his objections to the magistrate’s recommendation, Plaintiff argued that:

“The statute’s primary purpose of encouraging individual consumers to bring TCPA claims themselves by offering a private right faction does not align with a progressive disciplinary scheme where a Defendant must have so many complaints or lawsuits before a court will award treble damages. This reasoning does not follow congressional intent. This court rationalized the denial of the request for treble damages from a penal perspective as a way to punish and deter the defendant when in fact its is a remedial statue intended to compensate the Plaintiff for the invasion of privacy.”

However, the court was not swayed by Plaintiff’s arguments, finding no grounds to deviate from the magistrate’s recommendations. As a result, after a year and a half since the lawsuit’s filing, Plaintiff was awarded $3,000, but not the treble damages he sought.

While the defendants’ strategy of non-participation may seem to have paid off for now, it’s a risky gamble. Future TCPA litigation might take this judgment into account, potentially leading to treble future damage awards.