An Unbiased, Market-Based Approach to Valuing the Economic Benefit to Society of TCPA Class Action Settlement Agreements

Introduction

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action settlement agreements often face a challenge: how to communicate the economic benefit to society that arises from non-monetary remedies. While the TCPA’s statutory framework typically allows for $500 per violation, this amount alone does not capture how consumers actually value the cessation of unsolicited telemarketing calls. To credibly demonstrate that injunctive or remedial relief provides substantial, quantifiable benefits, lawyers need a method grounded in consumer behavior and market-based data.

This page presents a practical, unbiased approach that leverages willingness-to-pay (WTP) insights—drawn from what consumers spend on call-blocking services and related tools—to show how eliminating these calls yields a meaningful, real-world economic benefit. Such a market-aligned perspective helps attorneys, courts, and mediators understand why the settlement’s non-monetary outcomes hold tangible value for both class members and society as a whole.

1. Why a Market-Based Perspective Matters

In a TCPA class action context, non-monetary relief—such as halting unwanted calls—delivers a quality-of-life improvement that can be translated into economic terms. Consumers already pay out-of-pocket for call-blocking or spam-filtering services, indicating a natural market-driven valuation of privacy and reduced intrusions. By integrating this consumer spending data:

  • Aligning with Consumer Reality: Rather than relying solely on a statutory figure (often $500 per violation), referencing what consumers already pay to avoid calls creates a more accurate reflection of the economic benefit.
  • Building Credibility: Presenting data-driven valuations helps courts and mediators better understand that these benefits are not abstract. Attorneys can point to widely available subscription data—such as consumers willingly spending $1.99 to $3.99 per month—to support the notion that remedial relief has a quantifiable worth.

2. Foundation: Class Size, Class Period, and Call Frequency

Before applying WTP data, collect essential information about the lawsuit:

  • Class Size: Determine how many individuals are affected, ensuring that the valuation reflects the entire group benefiting from the injunctive or remedial relief.
  • Class Period: Define the timeframe during which the alleged violations occurred. This anchors your historical data and projections.
  • Call Frequency: Identify how many unwanted calls each class member received during the class period. This provides a baseline for estimating future calls that would have continued without the settlement’s intervention.

3. Projecting Future Calls and Avoided Harm

To illustrate the economic benefit of the settlement’s injunctive relief, consider the scenario without the settlement. If class members previously received a certain volume of telemarketing calls, and there’s no reason to believe that pattern would diminish, assume a similar rate would persist into the future.

  • Baseline Scenario: Use historical call data to approximate how many calls would be avoided each year thanks to the settlement.
  • Time Horizon: Extend this reasoning over multiple years, as ongoing compliance delivers a cumulative economic benefit to society by preventing countless future calls.

Presenting these projections to courts and mediators clarifies the scale of avoided harm and sets the stage for assigning value.

4. Applying Willingness-to-Pay: Per-Call and Aggregate Approaches

WTP data is central to translating avoided calls into economic value. Since consumers frequently spend a few dollars monthly to avoid unsolicited calls, we can use that information in two ways:

  • Per-Call Valuation: If a $3.00-per-month subscription prevents roughly 10 unwanted calls, each call is “worth” about $0.30. Multiplying this by the total avoided calls reveals the settlement’s economic impact on a per-call basis.
  • Aggregate Valuation: Alternatively, focus on the cost that must be paid by class members to avoid telemarketing calls. Some courts accept an aggregate perspective, where WTP data is used to show how much the entire class would collectively “pay” to eliminate unwanted calls over a time horizon.

Both the per-call and aggregate approaches have been acknowledged in court-approved settlements, reflecting a flexible yet credible method of tying market-based consumer behavior to the economic benefit produced by the settlement’s non-monetary terms.

5. Integrating the Analysis into Legal Practice

By incorporating WTP insights and focusing on consumer-based metrics, attorneys can:

  • Enhance Negotiations: Presenting a well-grounded economic rationale encourages more productive conversations with opposing counsel.
  • Inform Judicial Review: Charts and summaries that link class size, call frequency, and WTP data help judges and mediators see the tangible value of the relief.
  • Improve Client and Public Understanding: Explaining that class members already pay to avoid calls helps clients and the public appreciate the settlement’s true economic benefit to society.

Conclusion

Valuing the non-monetary outcomes of TCPA class action settlement agreements is simpler when grounded in actual consumer behavior. By using WTP data—what consumers willingly pay to avoid telemarketing calls—attorneys can demonstrate that the remedial relief secured by the settlement is both economically meaningful and socially beneficial.

This unbiased, market-based method shows that beyond any statutory figure, the avoided calls represent a genuine economic benefit to society. Courts, mediators, and opposing counsel are more likely to recognize and respect the substance of your argument when it reflects real-world consumer preferences.

For Further Information:
Contact J. Herbert Burkman & Associates

Keywords: TCPA class action settlement agreements, economic benefit to society, market-based valuation, willingness-to-pay, consumer valuation, injunctive relief, remedial relief, class period, class size, call frequency, telemarketing calls, per-call valuation, aggregate valuation, consumer preferences.