With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 114. Stated differently, the language simply allows state courts to decide which plaintiffs may bring a TCPA action in state courts. Id. In this way, the “language applies only to TCPA claims in state court;” it has no application to TCPA claims in federal court. Id. at 113. Accordingly, because Plaintiff brought these TCPA claims in federal court, the “if otherwise permitted language” has no application to the case at hand. The assumption by Plaintiffs estate that state law governs survivability is based on pre-Mims case law, principally iHire, that amplified the “if otherwise permitted” language in Sections 227(b) and 227(c). ECF No. 32 at 2 (citing iHire, 476 F.3d at 1118). In short, in the wake of Mims, federal courts apply federal law to the substantive issu (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). It is important to make two observations here

A: holding that the tcpas 500 statutory damages provision is remedial
B: holding tcpa is remedial statute and that statutory damages are not punitive damages
C: holding that a plaintiff can seek statutory damages even in the absence of actual damages
D: recognizing repayment of damages to society as remedial
A.