Law Alert: State Mini TCPA Laws Growing -Texas Latest to Update its Telemarketing Rules, 8-21-2025, by Richard J. Perr, Monica M. Littman, Graeme E. Hogan, Dominic Borelli, and Kristen Ruotolo

While the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) remains foundational, numerous states have introduced their own, often more stringent, mini‑TCPA laws—complete with expanded definitions, tighter restrictions, and enhanced enforcement mechanisms.

On the horizon, Texas recently passed significant amendments to its mini-TCPA, set to take effect on September 1, 2025, signaling the state’s move toward stricter telemarketing regulation.

Texas: Key Amendments Under SB 140

• Expanded Scope of “Telephone Solicitation”
  The definition now covers not only voice calls, but also text messages, image/graphic messages, and other transmission meant to induce a consumer to purchase, rent, claim or receive an item.
• New Private Right of Action via the DTPA
  Consumers may now sue directly under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for telemarketing violations—including call‑time breaches, failure to register, or ignoring opt‑out requests—without needing prior agency involvement.
• Unlimited Potential for Repeat Claims
  SB 140 explicitly allows consumers to bring multiple actions for violations, removing any cap on repeat recovery.

Other States with Mini-TCPA Laws

Below is a snapshot of several other states that have implemented telemarketing laws that mirror or exceed the federal TCPA in scope and enforcement:

• Arizona – HB 2498 prohibits unsolicited text messages in addition to phone calls to numbers registered on the Do-Not-Call registry, with fines up to $1,000 per violation.
• Connecticut – SB 1058 requires prior express written consent for any telephonic sales call, broadens the definition of telemarketer, as well as covered technologies, and includes steep penalties of up to $20,000 for each violation.
• Florida – HB 761 brought substantial changes to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA). This included clarifying what constitutes consent and clear and conspicuous disclosure and providing a safe harbor period of 15 days from the date a consumer notifies the telephone solicitor that he or she does not want to receive text message solicitations.
• Georgia – SB 73 made significant amendments to Georgia’s existing telemarketing laws including removing statutory damage caps for private actions and added a provision allowing for vicarious liability, significantly increasing litigation exposure.
• Maryland – SB 90, the Maryland “Stop the Spam Calls Act”, requires express written consent for telephone solicitations, with limits of three per 24-hour period, defines “automated system” broadly, and treats violations as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices subject to enforcement and penalties under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
• Mississippi – H.B. 1225 amended the state’s existing telephone solicitation laws and among changes transferred the state’s administrative, investigative and enforcement authority relating to the state’s no-call program from the Public Service Commission to the Attorney General’s Office.
• New Jersey – S921, aka the Seinfeld Bill, added provisions to NJ’s telemarketing law that imposed greater disclosure requirements including requiring telemarketers to within the first 30 seconds of a call to accurately identify themselves, the name and phone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made, and the purpose of the call.
• New York – New York has seen a few amendments to its telemarketing laws first with S.8450-B (effective March 6, 2023), which requires telemarketer to give customers the option to be added to the company’s do-not-call list at the outset of certain telemarketing calls,  and then again with further changes on September 13, 2023 with S4617, which raised the maximum fine for violating the Do Not Call Registry from $11,000 to $20,000.
• Oklahoma – HB 3168, the Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation Act, includes broad autodialer definitions, restricts calling hours, and caps call attempts, with significant penalties for violations.
• Tennessee – SB. 868 extended existing prohibitions, requirements and penalties that apply to telephone solicitations to also include text message solicitations.
• Virginia – SB 1339, effective Jan. 1, 2026, makes further amendments to the Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act. In 2020, the Act was initially amended to include text messages in addition to raising violation fees. The latest amendment, among provisions, permits an individual receiving a telephone solicitation via text message to request not to receive such solicitation from a telephone solicitor by replying to the text message with the word “Unsubscribe” or “Stop.” The bill requires a telephone solicitor in receipt of such request to honor the request for at least 10 years from the time it is made.
• Washington – HB 1051, known as the Robocall Scam Protection Act, among provisions updates the definition of “automatic dialing and announcing device”, as well as the definition of commercial solicitation. Notably, the definition of “commercial solicitation” is expanded to include the wrongful acquisition of anything of value. 

Bottom Line:

The patchwork of mini-TCPA laws presents growing compliance challenges for businesses relying on telemarketing, SMS, or autodialed outreach. With Texas now joining the ranks of states enacting more robust consumer protections, companies must adapt quickly to mitigate legal risk and maintain compliant outreach practices across all jurisdictions.

If you need assistance with complying with your federal and/or state obligations under the TCPA, please contact the skilled attorneys in our Financial Services and Institutions team.