Kevin, did somebody tell you that? Because I've read through that act and that isn't how I understand it. I could not find any of these words in it: suffer, suffered, previous, must, lose, lost, money, monies, personal, funds. https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/tcpa-rules.pdf
And it seems clear that even absent money loss, the court may have notable latitude to impose a much more liberal punishment scheme. Here's a lady (from the same state in which Jerry lives) who won a suit against Conn's...simply over telephone harassment under the TCPA rules: https://www.fox13memphis.com/top-st...furniture-store-s-robocallers/934471680/
Under TCPA limitations, her award should have been limited to $153,000 (since she received 306 calls) but the court awarded her $459,000.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act or “TCPA,” prohibits anyone from calling or texting you using an automated dialing system unless they have your prior permission. The TCPA also prohibits anyone from calling you using a prerecorded or synthetic voice without your prior consent.
The TCPA allows you to sue both robocallers and robotexters and receive in payment between $500 and 3 times that or $1500. However the law also allows consumers to sue for $500 per call or per text after the first one...if you are on the do not call list and the caller ignores that.
I have found references in government documents relating to the TCPA to "residential subscriber" which could I suppose under strict interpretation be limiting. What the 2012 amendment to the act says is:
“Residential Subscriber” An individual who has contracted with a common carrier to provide telephone exchange service at a personal residence.
And the 2012 amendment states "Under the FCC’s rules, no seller or entity telemarketing on behalf of the seller can initiate a telephone solicitation to a residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national “Do-Not-Call” registry.
Whether this is in any manner limits benefit under the act to those who solely use cell phones as their residential telephone isn't clear...but given the mass exodus away from land lines I would be very surprised if any court would adopt that sort of nonsense.