While everyone races,
we collect the toll.

Courts have drawn a line, and the structure is built to sit on the right side of it rather than to argue it away. Stoops and Nomorobo both turned on numbers acquired or maintained principally to attract calls. Claims here originate from unsolicited communications received by property owners and participating consumers at numbers that exist for the property or the person, and eligibility, consent history, DNC status, purpose of use and injury are reviewed before any demand issues. That distinction has not yet been adjudicated on these facts, and it is cleared with bar-admitted counsel state by state before matters are opened there. The matters a district judge ever sees are the screened federal band, and those arrive on a bar number after independent review.

That is the correct read, and it is why throughput is constrained by structure rather than by appetite. Standing quality degrades with scale if origination ever shifts toward generating contacts rather than receiving them, so the governing rule is a hard ceiling on matters per month per claimant entity. Growth comes from more genuine claimants, not from more contact per claimant: additional owned properties, and above that participating consumers who registered their own numbers and did not want the call. The standing argument and the scaling thesis have to stay congruent at every funding stage, and the per entity ceiling is set with counsel before the next rung is funded, not after.

That scrutiny is a federal court problem, and no federal case is ever filed without counsel. Small claims is a self represented forum by design: many states bar lawyers from appearing there at all, the record is a form and an exhibit set, and the docket runs on volume. The twenty percent that escalate carry a bar number, follow local rules, and arrive through the same channel as any other matter on the docket.

Collectibility scoring runs before anything is filed. Well capitalized defendants score warm or cold and receive a demand letter only. The hot band is small operators, where an uncontested resolution is the likeliest outcome. How likely is a modeling assumption rather than an observed result, and it is priced as one: § 06.3 runs filed-matter default at 25, 50 and 75 percent across the three cases, and the downside column also carries a quarter of filed matters as contested at zero recovery. Where a matter is contested it reaches counsel as a complete evidence package, and counsel is compensated for that work separately from the contingency line.

Agreed, which is why nothing on this page books an entered judgment as recovery. Published experience on small claims default collection runs between 25 and 40 percent. The model applies 30, the conservative middle, to every judgment entered, and every downstream figure on the site is built on the number after that write down rather than before it. Demand letter settlements carry no discount because they are paid in cash. Where permitted, a judgment may be recorded to create a lien against non-exempt real property owned by the judgment debtor. Priority, duration, collectibility and enforcement vary by jurisdiction and asset, which is exactly why the write down is applied to every judgment rather than to the ones that look difficult. The § 03 table carries the write down as its own line so it can be checked rather than taken, and § 06.3 prices collection at 10, 30 and 45 percent across the three cases.

The private right of action can only be removed by amendment, and Congress is moving the other way. PACRA was reintroduced on April 14, 2026 to extend do not call protection to businesses, lower the trigger from two calls to one, and reverse Facebook v. Duguid. State statutes sit outside federal reach entirely: Texas at $5,000 and Connecticut at $20,000. The reverse happens too, and we price for it: Florida gutted its own mini-TCPA with HB 761 in May 2023, narrowing the trigger and adding a fifteen day cure window, so Florida is worked as a federal and FDCPA jurisdiction rather than an FTSA one. Six workflows across independent statutes means no single amendment ends the business.

No consent was ever given. The contact page attached to each seed number is informational. It carries no form, no opt in, no checkbox, and no invitation to call. The burden of proving prior express written consent falls on the defendant, and there is nothing on the record for them to point to.

The entity database records every contact from every caller. The 227(c) count is only raised once a second contact from the same entity is confirmed on the record. Prerecorded voice and autodialer claims under 227(b) carry no such requirement and stand on a single call.

Tollman is not a participant in anyone's legal fee. Every claim is held by the claimant, the party that received the call and carries statutory standing: an owner entity on the property matters, the individual consumer on the consumer product. The claimant brings its own claim as the injured party and takes its own recovery. Tollman is compensated for evidence, workflow and administrative services under a written agreement with that claimant, subject to applicable restrictions on assignment, fee sharing and legal services, and not out of counsel's fee. No claim is treated as assigned to the platform in any jurisdiction unless assignment is validated for that statute and that state. Counsel's contingency is paid by the client from the client's recovery under a written engagement, and counsel retains sole professional judgment over what is filed, what is settled and what is declined. Nothing pre-suit is legal advice to a third party: demand letters issue from the claimant on its own behalf, and small claims is a self represented forum in which a party appearing for itself is not practicing law. That structure is the argument, not the clearance. A written ethics opinion from bar-admitted regulatory counsel in each filing state is required before any fee arrangement is operationalized, and no percentage is fixed until those opinions are in hand.