Defending Your Business in Small Claims Court

​Facing a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuit in small claims court presents a unique dilemma for businesses. The statutory damages—$500 to $1,500 per violation—are often low enough to fall within small claims jurisdiction but high enough to be painful. While hiring outside counsel can cost more than the claim itself, representing your business pro se (without an attorney) is legally perilous, and in some courts may not be an option.

The General Rule: Attorney Representation Required

Under the common law of most US jurisdictions, legal entities such as corporations or limited liability companies are considered to be distinct legal "persons." However, while natural persons have a constitutional right to self-representation under the Sixth Amendment in criminal cases and a statutory right in civil cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1654, this right does not extend to business entities such as corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), partnerships, limited liability partnerships (LLPs), and other artificial legal entities.

Therefore, the general rule is that a business entity must be represented by a licensed attorney in court. This is always the case in federal court, where corporations and other business entities are strictly prohibited from appearing pro se, a rule that applies even if the corporation or LLC has only a single owner or member. Federal court litigation involves complex procedural rules, evidentiary standards, and substantive law that non-lawyers typically cannot navigate effectively, so the general rule requiring business entities to be represented by counsel helps ensure that cases move forward efficiently.

More importantly, because a corporation or LLC is a separate legal entity distinct from its owners, officers, directors, and employees, any non-attorney who purports to represent the entity in court would be representing another "person" and thus engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Unless they are a licensed attorney in the state in which they seek to appear, an owner, officer, or manager attempting to represent the company is technically engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

The vast majority of state courts follow the same rule. Higher courts in California, New York, Washington, Florida, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and numerous other jurisdictions have consistently held that corporations and LLCs cannot represent themselves and must appear through licensed attorneys.

The one business structure that can appear pro se is a sole proprietorship. This exception exists because a sole proprietorship has no separate legal existence apart from its owner—the business and the individual are legally one and the same. Therefore, when a sole proprietor appears in court regarding business matters, they are representing themselves, not a separate entity

The Small Claims Exception

Smal claims represents a rare exception to the general rule requiring corporate defendants to have legal representation in court. Designed for speed and cost-efficiency, multiple court systems have created specific exemptions allowing business entities to be represented by non-attorney corporate officers, directors, or authorized employees. The ability to appear pro se depends entirely on state statutes and local court rules, such as those in the “TCPA hotspots” summarized below.

California: Under CCP § 116.510, a corporation may appear in small claims court through a regular employee, officer, or director. However, the jurisdictional limit for businesses is generally capped at $6,250, an amount far lower than the $12,500 limit for individuals.

Texas: Texas Gov't Code § 28.003 allows corporations to appear without counsel in small claims. The $20,000 small claims limit is higher than in most states, making Texas a popular venue for higher-value small claims TCPA suits.

Florida: Small Claims Rule 7.050(a)(2) permits a business to be represented by an officer or authorized employee. However, this exception strictly ends at judgment; non-attorneys cannot handle appeals or post-judgment collections.

New York: Under New York law, corporations generally cannot initiate claims without counsel, , but they are permitted to defend small claims actions pro se through an authorized officer (NY City Civ. Ct. Act § 1809).

Illinois: Illinois represents a potential trap for the unwary. While 735 ILCS 5/2-416 seems to permit corporate self-representation, Supreme Court Rule 282(b) actually prohibits corporations from appearing without counsel. Illinois courts have frequently voided judgments won by pro se corporations, ruling the representation was void ab initio.

The Challenges of a Pro Se Defense in Small Claims

Unlike federal court data, aggregate statistics for small claims outcomes are not centrally reported. However, legal analysis of case outcomes and defense firm data indicates the following trends regarding success rates for self-represented businesses:

Strict Liability Means More Plaintiff Victories: The success rate for pro se business defendants in TCPA cases is generally low when the case goes to a decision, for one simple reason. Like speeding or dog-bite laws, the TCPA is a "strict liability" statute, meaning that intent is not an issue. If the defendant placed a marketing call to a number on the Do Not Call (DNC) registry or used an autodialer without consent, for the most part nothing else matters. Business owners representing themselves frequently argue that the call at issue was made in good faith reliance upon a lead form submitted on their website that included the wrong number. Sadly, this defense is irrelevant.

The Home Court Advantage: Many professional TCPA plaintiffs have filed dozens- even hundreds- of cases in their local small claims courts. They not only know the law far better than the hapless business owners they sue, but they also know the practices and procedures of their chosen court by heart. Some of them even have longstanding relationships with court personnel, and sometimes the judges themselves. This experience provides them with an advantages that first-time defendants can rarely overcome.

Procedure and Filing Challenges: Small claims is designed for non‑lawyers, but businesses still have to navigate technical rules. Deadlines for filing, service, and responding are strict, and sometimes difficult to comply with when you have a business to run. Missing a date or using the wrong address for service can result in a default judgment against the business or a defense being waived. Even simple questions—such as whether the claim is within the court’s jurisdictional dollar limit, whether the claim is time‑barred, or whether the business is even allowed to appear without an attorney in that state—can be traps for an unrepresented company.

The Fairness Factor: Although strict liability and the home court advantage often stack the odds in the plaintiff’s favor, the procedural success rate (getting a dismissal or low settlement) can be higher in small claims than in federal court for one specific reason: judicial discretion. Small claims judges (or adjudicators/referees) have the authority to choose among legally permissible options in deciding a case based on the law and the specific facts, rather than by rigid rule alone. Unlike higher-court judges, arbiters of small claims disputes are often more concerned with fundamental fairness than rigid statutory adherence. A small claims judge may be reluctant to award a plaintiff additional “knowing and willful” damages if the business demonstrates it has a compliance policy and made an honest error and may even be willing to entirely disregard calls the plaintiff claims to have received.

While the fairness factor can help defendants in some cases, by and large small claims adjudication overwhelmingly favors TCPA plaintiffs rather than defendants. For that reason, seasoned professional plaintiffs often choose to proceed there.

An Option, but Maybe not the Best Option

Business entities are generally prohibited from representing themselves in court proceedings, with the notable exception of sole proprietorships (which are not separate entities) and specific small claims court provisions in most states. This longstanding rule reflects fundamental principles about the nature of artificial legal entities, the unauthorized practice of law, maintaining the corporate veil, and ensuring competent representation in judicial proceedings.

While a business can represent itself in many small claims courts, the nature of the venue and the law confers distinct advantages on plaintiffs, especially experienced professional litigants. While some judges may use their discretion to minimize damage awards, the overall difficulties associated with a business representing itself in small claims court can lead to a real risk of losing winnable cases, not because the underlying defense is weak, but because of procedural missteps, incomplete proof, or unrealistic expectations.

Even if a company ultimately prevails, the time away from day‑to‑day operations, the stress of learning unfamiliar rules, and the possibility of post‑judgment enforcement hurdles can make self‑representation a costly proposition in both economic and practical terms.

As the old proverb says, “A man who represents himself has a fool for a client.” If you find yourself with the option of defending your company in small claims court, do yourself and the business a favor and hire an attorney.