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.