I remember when default judgments in TCPA cases were for like $4,500.00.
Then guys started hitting the mid-five figures.
But now recoveries in the six figures on a default basis is becoming pretty standard.
The truth is the pro se litigators are getting a lot better at their craft– just like the Plaintiff’s lawyers.
I mean Dobronski just crushed a #biglaw firm and opened up a whole new avenue of recovery under the Caller ID rules, so there is little doubt these guys are capable litigators.
The big change, however, is the ability to leverage state laws.
In Barton v. Real Innovation, 2025 WL 1993193 (W.D. Wash. July 17, 2025) for instance the famous litigator Nathan Barton walked away with a judgment in excess of $130k on 77 calls, 54 of which were prerecorded.
Now interestingly the court here refused to treble damages. So there was a real chalkboard exercise required to get to the $130k.
First the court awarded $500.00 per call for the 54 prerecords.
Then the court awarded $500.00 per call for the 77 calls under the DNC rules.
(Yes, the court permitted a double recovery on 54 of the calls under 227(b) and 227(c) of the TCPA– two sections, one phone call, two violations of the statute.)
But that is still only $65,500.00.
So where did the other half come from?
State law.
Washington state has a powerful state law known as CEMA that provides protections to consumers and also provides a private right of action for recovery when the provisions are violated.
There are several provisions that were allegedly violated here.
First, Wash. Rev. Code. §§ 80.36.390(2)/(3) requires callers to identify themselves in calls. The Court found the calls at issue actually did meet this requirement, however, as they mentioned “American Benefits” and “Senior Benefits”– names the court assumed belonged to entities the caller was working on behalf of.
Second, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 80.36.390(6)/(7) “[i]f, at any time during the telephone contact, the called party states or indicates that he or she does not want to be called again by the telephone solicitor or wants to have his or her name, individual telephone number, or other contact information removed from the telephone lists used by the telephone solicitor” then the caller must “inform the called party that his or her contact information will be removed from the telephone solicitor’s telephone lists for at least one year.” Barton alleged that 25 calls were made after he asked for the calls to stop. So the court awarded
Third, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 80.36.390(9) affords a separate recovery for calls to numbers on the federal DNC list. The court found the same 77 violations here as for the federal DNC.
Fourth, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 80.36.400(2) provides “[n]o person may use an automatic dialing and announcing device for purposes of commercial solicitation.” The definition here is different than the federal rules– it does not require the use of a random or sequential number generator. Regardless, however, because 55 calls were prerecorded the court awarded damages.
Now calculating damages under the state law is interesting because the amounts recoverable changed effective July 23, 2023 increasing the minimum damages, from $100 to $1,000 (WDNC) and from $500 to $1,000 (WADAD). Some of the calls at issue happened before the cutoff, some happened after.
So as a result we ended with some oddball recoveries here: Wash. Rev. Code § 80.36.390(6)/(7) $14,900 Wash. Rev. Code § 80.36.390(9) $8,000 Wash. Rev. Code § 80.36.400 $42,500.
Anyway total awarded is $130,500.00.
And notice calls placed into Washington NOW carry the higher penalties. So watch out.
Discover more from TCPAWorld
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Got 2 calls b4 noon today from “Stephanie w/ American Benefits” utilizing a soundboard pitching Final Expense Life Policies. Return calls to the local numbers were met with a standard disconnected message. Both numbers were allocated by Cox Communications.
Clinton from Louisiana
First off you’re 100% correct about the pro se plaintiffs mentioned!
Now since the $$ were high and Barton named, this case warranted a deep dive, and boy oh boy I hit the proverbial pay-dirt!
First, the court assuming “American Benefits” and “Senior Benefits” are legit cos defies logic and the judge must not own a phone (oh wait judges don’t typically take calls on the bench – that could explain that – lol) as everybody has gotten calls from those and knows they are the standard generic names used by call centers to remain opaque. Missing from the complaint was Barton delving into said fact(s) thus loosing out on the Wash. Rev. Code. §§ 80.36.390(2)/(3) PRA$
But that’s a minor point and Eric you’ll love this:
I’d rate the odds of Barton EVER collecting a penny of that $130K is minute at best, why you ask?
Deep dive revealed the fact that Real Innovation contracted with a “small mom & pop” lead gen co from Ohio (hint, hint – this is what got me going) I remembered the name Deryck Richardson of the infamous Richardson Marketing LLC in Columbus Ohio!!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.332164/gov.uscourts.wawd.332164.31.0.pdf
Who was immortalized in a Deserve to Win episode that even caught the Czar off guard once he dug into Richardson’s story…
To wit this guy actually bragged on air about how he would never pay a penny to any TCPA plaintiff, how he would shut down and re-open as a new entity the next day before paying out*, how he actually buys only aged leads, and how he sends them to his…wait for it…overseas call centers as he makes more that way!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QSd-yj8Ovg&t=1644s I couldn’t make s*** this up!!
So how does this all fit in you ask?
Turns out Real Innovations, by all accounts a legit insurance broker that even has a page devoted to TCPA on its website was dismissed from the suit
https://realinnovationlife.com/tcpa-and-internal-policy/
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.332164/gov.uscourts.wawd.332164.62.0.pdf
Thus leaving Lead Gen Richardson holding the full $130K proverbial bag…
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.332164/gov.uscourts.wawd.332164.71.0.pdf
But wait, there’s more!!
As Richardson’s contractual agreement with Real Innovations included TCPA compliance language Real Innovations has filed a cross-claim against Richardson for Indemnification & Breach of Contract – see pgs. 36-40
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.332164/gov.uscourts.wawd.332164.12.0.pdf
*For what it’s worth Richardson still in biz under orig name https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_oh/4000853
But I wonder for how long now that he’s on the hook!?!?!
Lastly, Google ‘Richardson Marketing Group LLC’ and read the mixed reviews…
It’s a good idea to spell the names of famous litigators correctly. The first name of the “famous litigator Nathan Barton” is Nathen, not Nathan.
Just had to add this, from his Google Reviews…
Rightfully pissed off customer: “We are very disappointed with the quality of leads we’ve been receiving for the past 5 months. We have not been able to have a meaningful conversation with a single lead from the list…TRMG are quick to send you replacements that are rejected by your CRM, but it seems they’re replacing trash with more trash.”
The scumbags (oops I mean the owners) response: “Aged leads is an interesting business. There are good leads in there, bad leads in there, and leads that shouldn’t be in there, in there. This is why we implemented a deliverability guarantee that replaces bad leads”
“Replacing trash with trash” and “Aged leads is an interesting business” pretty much sums it up!
Remember these ‘interesting aged leads’ are AFTER his overseas call center has milked them so maybe calling them ‘ancient or archaic’ would be more appropriate – truly a bottom feeder.
I not holding my breathe waiting to see him on the R.E.A.C.H. Member list…
I am not expecting RMG to pay any judgment but the case against Mr Richardson is ongoing and it is my understanding that Mr Barton and Real Innovation are joining forces to take him to trial late this year.