is to redress individual wrongs or wrongs to the public; (b) whether the recovery runs to the individual or the public; and (c) whether the recovery is disproportionate to the harm suffered.” Estmck, 950 F.Supp. at 498: Whether Section 227(b)(3) and ■227(c)(5) of the TCPA are penal or remedial in nature, as a matter of federal common law and for purposes of survivability of claims, appears to be a matter of first impression. Notably, in contexts other than survivability of claims, other courts are split as to whether the TCPA is penal or remedial. For instance, the district court in iHire found that in the related context of whether a party can assign its TCPA claim to someone else, TCPA claims are penal. See US Fax Law Ctr., Inc. v. iHire, Inc., 362 F.Supp.2d 1248, 1253 (D.Colo.2005) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, some courts have found
holding that section 227b3 is penal as a matter of colorado law because in part it was enacted to address a public harm and the recovery is disproportionate to the harm suffered holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative holding that likelihood of irreparable harm must be based on evidence in the record not unsupported and conclusory statements regarding harm the plaintiff might suffer holding specific intent to harm may be inferred from the circumstances and that finding is a matter for the jury holding that icecovered steps did not present a high likelihood of harm or severity of harm