Punitive damages are awarded for intentionally injurious behavior. They are not required to match up to actual harm -- they are intended to punish and to encourage the defendant to avoid future injurious behavior.
Punitive damage case law is inapplicable to compensatory damage cases (statutory damages are compensatory, not punitive).
It's like crime: if you commit a crime, you waive due process in regards to the formula used to determine what sentence you serve. Your only protection is what the people, via the legislature, has determined is a fair formula for determining sentencing.
BTW, you should check your case law. Statutory damages have always been upheld by the courts.
Speaking of checking your case law, you should look into the statutory damages. If there is no punitive element, then why are damages elevated for "willful" conduct?
There's nothing novel about applying due process limitations to statutory prescriptions. "Always upheld" isn't remotely true; the issue of due process restrictions on punitive elements in statutes has barely been considered even by District Courts (much less appellate courts) in the wake of the Gore and Campbell cases.
Punitive damage case law is inapplicable to compensatory damage cases (statutory damages are compensatory, not punitive).
It's like crime: if you commit a crime, you waive due process in regards to the formula used to determine what sentence you serve. Your only protection is what the people, via the legislature, has determined is a fair formula for determining sentencing.
BTW, you should check your case law. Statutory damages have always been upheld by the courts.