State by state TCPA rules for outbound voice AI
The federal rules are the easy part. What decides whether an AI calling program is safe to run is the state law sitting underneath them, and in two states the answer is not a consent form at all. This guide covers the federal baseline in full, the current FCC position, and six jurisdictions read line by line against the statutes themselves.
WANo consent path
CAAI voice notice
NYCall identification
FLNo window or cap
MD3 calls per day
OKRegistration gate
This is not legal adviceBigly Sales is a technology company, not a law firm. Everything below is a plain reading of published statutes and federal rules as of September 2026, gathered so your team has something concrete to hand to counsel. Confirm every point with your own attorney before you dial. Statutes change, and a fact pattern can turn a general rule into a different answer.
Start Here
Washington is the finding most outbound programs miss
Almost every compliance checklist treats state telemarketing law as a set of tighter calling windows and stricter consent forms. Washington is different in kind, not in degree.
RCW 80.36.400 has no consent safe harbor
Washington law prohibits the use of an automatic dialing and announcing device for commercial solicitation. The statutory language at RCW 80.36.400(2) is a flat prohibition rather than a consent regime.
“No person may use an automatic dialing and announcing device for purposes of commercial solicitation.”
An automatic dialing and announcing device is defined as a system that automatically dials telephone numbers and plays a recorded or artificial voice message. Two details make that definition matter for AI calling. First, an artificial voice is named directly, so the question is not whether a human recorded the audio. Second, the statute treats the message as delivered even when it lands in voicemail, which means ringless voicemail is inside the definition, not outside it.
Nowhere in RCW 80.36.400 is there a prior express written consent exception of the kind that Maryland, Oklahoma and the federal rules provide. The only visible opening is the word “unsolicited” carried in the definition of commercial solicitation, and how far that reaches is a question for a lawyer, not for a vendor.
The remedy is not small either. RCW 80.36.400(4) provides a private right of action for $1,000 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater. Separately, RCW 19.158.030 makes a violation of the commercial telephone solicitation chapter a per se violation of the Consumer Protection Act, which routes a claimant to RCW 19.86.090 for damages and attorney fees.
What to do with this. Do not read it as settled advice, and do not read it as a reason to panic. Read it as the single question worth putting in front of counsel before any AI voice campaign dials a Washington number, because a consent record that satisfies the federal standard may not answer the Washington statute at all.
Sourcing note. Every leg.wa.gov subdomain refused connections while this guide was built, so the RCW text above was read from recent Internet Archive captures of the official app.leg.wa.gov pages, with the calling hours independently corroborated by the Washington Attorney General. The capture behind RCW 80.36.400 dates to April 2026. Re-confirm against the live RCW site before you rely on it.
State by state
What each state actually requires
Six jurisdictions, read directly in the statute. This is the short version of each. The full reading, with section numbers, is further down the page.
Washington
The hardest rule in the country for AI voice. RCW 80.36.400(2) prohibits using an automatic dialing and announcing device for commercial solicitation, and the definition names an artificial voice directly. No prior express written consent exception appears anywhere in the section.
Exposure is $1,000 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater, and registration with the Department of Licensing is mandatory even for out of state callers.
California
A live human has to open the call. Pub. Util. Code 2874(a) allows the device to operate only after an unrecorded natural voice announcement that names the business, asks whether the person consents to hear the recorded message, and states that the message uses an artificial voice.
AB 2905, effective 2025, wrote the terms artificial intelligence and artificial voice into the statute. The ADAD window is 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. California time, not the called party’s time.
New York
Identification, front and back. GBL 399-p(3) requires the device to state the nature of the call and the name of the seller at the beginning, and the address and phone number at the end. Random or sequential number generation is banned outright.
Enforcement runs through the Attorney General rather than a consumer private right of action, at up to $2,000 per call and $20,000 in total. Calling hours are 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. at the called person’s location.
Florida
No calling window and no daily cap. A full text pass over Fla. Stat. 501.059 finds no time of day language and no three calls per 24 hours rule. Florida is routinely grouped with Maryland and Oklahoma in error.
What it does have is a state do not call list, a consent test narrowed twice by HB 761 in 2023, caller ID duties, and a private right of action with a 15 day cure period on text claims.
Maryland
Three calls per 24 hours, regardless of the number you dial from. Com. Law 14-4502(c) sets an 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. window in the called party’s time zone and caps attempts on the same subject matter, written to defeat number rotation.
Prior express written consent must name the specific telephone number. Remedies cannot be waived by agreement, and a Maryland area code raises a rebuttable presumption of a Maryland resident.
Oklahoma
Registration is a gate, not paperwork. 15 O.S. 775A.3 requires registration with the Attorney General at $250 initially and $100 to renew, plus a $10,000 bond. Operating unregistered is itself an unlawful practice.
The conduct rules mirror Maryland. Same window, same three per 24 hours cap, and a caller ID number that has to be answerable and connect back to the solicitor.
The Grid
State comparison table for AI voice outbound
Seven jurisdictions and six columns, and the fourth column is where AI calling programs get caught. This table only lists jurisdictions we read directly in the statute. On a narrow screen it scrolls sideways.
| Jurisdiction | Calling window | Daily attempt cap | Consent standard for automated or artificial voice | Private right of action | Registration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FederalTCPA and the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 CFR 310 | 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. in the called party’s local time | No per day cap. Abandoned calls capped at 3 percent, measured over 30 days per campaign, with a live representative connected within 2 seconds of the greeting | Prior express written consent for autodialed or prerecorded marketing calls. The FCC one-to-one consent rule was vacated and never took effect | Yes. $500 per violation, up to $1,500 for a willful or knowing violation | No federal registration. National Do Not Call Registry scrub required at least every 31 days |
| CaliforniaPub. Util. Code 2871 to 2876, amended by AB 2905, Stats. 2024 Ch. 316 | 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. California time, 2872(c). Keyed to California time rather than the called party’s local time | No numeric cap. The device must disconnect on termination by either party, 2874(b) | No pure consent path. 2874(a) allows the device to operate only after an unrecorded natural voice announcement that names the business, asks whether the person consents to hear the recorded message, and states that the message uses an artificial voice. 2874(c) defines artificial voice as one generated or significantly altered using artificial intelligence | Enforcement sits with the Public Utilities Commission under 2872(a). Related conduct can be actionable under Civ. Code 1770 | No ADAD registration in this article. Narrow exemptions at 2872(d) for schools, member outreach by exempt organizations, utilities and cable on prearranged installs, and plant emergencies. None cover sales solicitation |
| FloridaFlorida Telephone Solicitation Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.059, as narrowed by HB 761 in 2023 | No FTSA-specific window, federal TSR applies. Section 501.059 contains no time-of-day language at all. The separate Florida Telemarketing Act at Fla. Stat. § 501.616 governs licensed telemarketers | None in the FTSA. The three per 24 hours rule belongs to Maryland and Oklahoma, and Florida is routinely grouped with them in error | Prior express written consent under § 501.059(8)(a), but only for unsolicited calls and only where the system performs selection and dialing. The definition at § 501.059(1)(g) requires the specific number, a clear and conspicuous disclosure and the not a condition of purchase statement, and covers call, text and voicemail | Yes. Actual damages or $500, whichever is greater, plus injunctive relief, § 501.059(10)(a), with discretionary treble to $1,500 on a willful or knowing finding, § 501.059(10)(b). A text solicitation claim first requires a STOP reply and a 15 day cure period, § 501.059(10)(c) | No FTSA registration. Florida runs its own no sales solicitation calls list, published quarterly by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, § 501.059(4), and solicitors must screen against the then-current list |
| MarylandCom. Law §§ 14-4501 to 14-4503, effective January 1, 2024 | 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. in the called party’s time zone, § 14-4502(c)(1). Automated dialing and recorded messages are expressly covered | Yes. Three calls per 24 hours to the same person on the same subject matter, regardless of the number used, § 14-4502(c)(2) | Prior express written consent, § 14-4502(a)(3). The signed agreement must name the specific telephone number and state that signing is not a condition of purchase, § 14-4501(d). Electronic signature is valid and the rule covers call, text and voicemail | Yes. The greater of $500 or actual damages, trebled for a willful or knowing violation, § 14-4503(a)(2). Remedies cannot be waived by agreement | No state registry and no solicitor registration. The federal Do Not Call Registry reaches Maryland through Com. Law § 14-3201 |
| New YorkGen. Bus. Law 399-p and 399-pp | 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. local time at the called person’s location, 399-pp(6) | No numeric cap. Random or sequential number generation is prohibited outright, 399-p(4) | No separate state written consent regime for ADAD. Instead a conduct duty. 399-p(3) requires the device to state the nature of the call and the seller’s name at the beginning and the address and telephone number at the end, and to disconnect on termination | Attorney General enforcement rather than a consumer private right of action. Civil penalty up to $2,000 per call, capped at $20,000 in total for violations of 399-p(3), (4) or (5) | No ADAD registration. Calls to emergency lines, hospitals, nursing homes, adult care facilities and their guest or patient rooms are prohibited, 399-p(5). Caller ID blocking is prohibited, 399-p(6-a) |
| OklahomaTelephone Solicitation Act of 2022, 15 O.S. §§ 775C.1 to 775C.6, effective November 1, 2022 | 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. in the called person’s time zone, § 775C.4(A)(1). Automated dialing and recorded messages are expressly covered | Yes. Three calls per 24 hours on the same subject matter, regardless of the phone number used, § 775C.4(A)(2) | Prior express written consent, § 775C.3(A). The agreement must name the telephone number and state that signing is not a condition of purchase, § 775C.2(3). Covers call, text and prerecorded voicemail | Yes. Actual damages or $500, whichever is greater, § 775C.6(A), with discretionary treble damages up to $1,500 on a willful or knowing finding, § 775C.6(B) | Yes. Registration with the Attorney General, $250 initial and $100 renewal on a one year term, 15 O.S. § 775A.3, plus a $10,000 bond under § 775A.5. A state Do Not Call registry is run by the Attorney General and updated at least quarterly |
| WashingtonRCW 19.158, RCW 80.36.390, RCW 80.36.400 | 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. in the recipient’s local time, RCW 19.158.040(2) and RCW 80.36.390(8) | No numeric cap found. Instead there is a 10 second hang up duty, a one year suppression duty once a person asks not to be called again, and a bar on selling that person’s contact information | No consent safe harbor. RCW 80.36.400(2) prohibits using an automatic dialing and announcing device for commercial solicitation outright, and the definition covers a recorded or artificial voice message including one delivered to voicemail | Yes. $1,000 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater, RCW 80.36.400(4). RCW 19.158.030 also makes a chapter violation a per se Consumer Protection Act claim under RCW 19.86.090 | Yes, mandatory. Out of state callers soliciting purchasers located in Washington must register with the Department of Licensing, RCW 19.158.050(1). No separate state registry, the federal one is incorporated by RCW 80.36.390(9) |
Read as of September 2026 from the statutes themselves. Florida and Washington entries carry a sourcing caveat, because the live legislature hosts for both states refuse connections and the statutory text was read from recent Internet Archive captures of the official pages, dated March 2026 for Fla. Stat. § 501.059 and April 2026 for RCW 80.36.400. Re-confirm both against the live sites before you rely on them. Damages figures are statutory amounts and are not a prediction of what any court would award. Nothing in this table is legal advice, and none of it substitutes for counsel who knows your call flow, your consent capture and your lead source.
Correction
Florida has no calling window and no daily call cap
This is the most frequently misstated entry in every state telemarketing summary we have read, and it is worth getting right because it changes what you build.
What the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act does not contain
A full-text pass over Fla. Stat. § 501.059 turns up no time-of-day language at all. No 8 a.m., no 9 p.m., no calling window of any kind. The window commonly attributed to Florida is either the federal Telemarketing Sales Rule window or it comes from Fla. Stat. § 501.616, which is the separate Florida Telemarketing Act covering licensed telemarketers and is a different chapter with a different scope.
The same goes for the attempt cap. There is no three calls per 24 hours rule in § 501.059. That cap belongs to Maryland and Oklahoma, and Florida gets grouped with them constantly because all three states passed mini-TCPA legislation in the same window. Grouping them is wrong on the statute.
Why this matters operationally. If you built your Florida suppression logic from a summary rather than the section, you may be enforcing a rule that does not exist while missing the ones that do. The real Florida obligations are the state do not call list, the internal do not call duty, the caller ID requirements and the consent test, and none of those look like a calling window.
The 2023 amendment cuts the other way too. HB 761 narrowed § 501.059(8)(a) so the consent requirement reaches only unsolicited calls, and only where the system performs selection and dialing rather than selection or dialing. That is materially narrower than the pre-2023 version that drove the Florida litigation wave, and it is the reason Florida reads as a lighter state than its reputation suggests.
None of that makes Florida a free state to dial into. The private right of action at § 501.059(10)(a) is real, the state maintains its own solicitation list you have to screen against, and the enforcement route through the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Attorney General sits alongside the private claim.
Federal floor
The nationwide baseline, in full
State law almost never loosens the federal rules. It layers on top of them, so the working assumption is that the strictest applicable rule governs the call. Everything in this section applies in all fifty states before a single state statute is opened.
Consent
- Prior express written consent is the standard for autodialed and prerecorded marketing calls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act at 47 U.S. Code 227, and the burden of proving it sits with the caller rather than the consumer.
- An AI generated voice is an artificial voice. The FCC confirmed this in February 2024, which means an AI agent placing a marketing call is inside the prerecorded and artificial voice rules rather than outside them.
- The consent record has to be specific. A signed agreement, the specific number being called, a clear and conspicuous disclosure of what the person is agreeing to, and a statement that signing is not a condition of purchase. Electronic signature counts.
- An established business relationship is not a substitute for written consent on a marketing call placed with an artificial voice. It is a narrower exemption than teams usually assume.
Timing and attempts
- Calling hours run 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. in the called party’s local time under the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule at 16 CFR 310. The lead’s actual location governs, not the area code alone and not your office hours.
- Abandoned calls are capped at 3 percent, measured over a 30 day period per campaign, and a live representative has to be connected within 2 seconds of the greeting or the call counts as abandoned.
- There is no federal per day attempt cap. Where a cap exists it comes from state law, which is why Maryland and Oklahoma matter to a dialer configuration and the federal rule does not.
Suppression and records
- The National Do Not Call Registry has to be scrubbed at least every 31 days for the safe harbor to be available, and the scrub has to be against the current list rather than a copy pulled once.
- An internal do not call list is a separate obligation from the national registry. A company specific request has to be honored for five years and it never expires on its own inside that period.
- Records supporting compliance are kept for 24 months under 16 CFR 310.5, including the consent artifact, the call detail and the disclosure language in use at the time.
Identification and caller ID
- The seller and the purpose of the call have to be disclosed promptly at the start of the call. Burying identification behind a qualification question does not satisfy it.
- Caller ID has to transmit and it may not be blocked or spoofed. The Truth in Caller ID rules make misleading caller ID a separate violation from anything in the consent rules.
- STIR SHAKEN attestation is the framework carriers use to verify that the caller is entitled to use the displayed number. Full attestation does not prevent a spam label on its own, but its absence makes one much more likely.
What it costs to get wrong
- $500 per violation under the TCPA, and up to $1,500 for a willful or knowing violation. There is a private right of action, so a plaintiff does not need a regulator to act first.
- Per violation math is what makes volume dangerous. A process defect that touches a thousand dials is a five hundred thousand dollar theory of damages before anyone argues about willfulness.
- Compliance controls reduce risk and do not transfer liability. The seller whose product is being sold stays responsible for the consent behind the lead, whichever vendor placed the call.
Business to business is not a clean exemption. The Telemarketing Sales Rule largely exempts business to business calls, but the TCPA’s artificial and prerecorded voice restrictions still reach wireless numbers, and a great many business contacts are mobile numbers. Treat a cell number as consumer protected regardless of who owns it.
FCC Status
Two federal facts people keep getting wrong
Both of these show up stated incorrectly on vendor sites and in sales decks, and both change what your consent capture has to do.
The one-to-one consent rule is not in force
The FCC one-to-one consent rule was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in January 2025 and never took effect. It would have required consent to name a single identified seller, which would have ended shared lead consent as the industry practiced it.
Because it was vacated, prior express written consent under the existing standard remains what applies. Any page telling you that one-to-one consent is the law today is describing a rule that was struck down before its effective date.
The revoke-all rule takes effect January 31, 2027
The cross-channel revocation provision at 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(10) will require that a revocation received on one channel be applied across channels for the same seller. It is not in force yet. FCC order DA 26-12, issued in January 2026, extended the effective date to January 31, 2027.
Future tense is the correct tense, and the right move is to build for it now rather than to claim it already applies.
Four other parts of the February 2024 consent order did take effect on April 11, 2025 and are enforceable today. A revocation has to be honored within 10 business days. The set of commands that count as a reasonable opt out is broader than the classic stop word list. An opt out given in response to an exempted informational call counts as full revocation for marketing as well. And a clear disclosure requirement applies at the point consent is captured.
Taken together, those four are the practical compliance work for 2026. The revoke-all provision arriving in January 2027 mostly rewards teams that already built one suppression list per seller instead of one per channel.
State Detail
What each verified state actually says
Six jurisdictions, in the order they are most likely to change how you build. The table compresses. These blocks carry the statutory detail your counsel will ask for.
California
Cal. Pub. Util. Code, Division 1, Part 2, Chapter 10, Article 1, Automatic Dialing-Announcing Devices, sections 2871 to 2876. Section 2874 amended by AB 2905, Stats. 2024, Ch. 316, Sec. 1. Read from the live official source at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov on 1 September 2026.
The provision that matters most
Section 2874(a) does not regulate what the recorded message says. It regulates what has to happen before the device is allowed to speak at all.
That announcement carries three duties. It has to state the nature of the call and the name, address and telephone number of the business being represented. It has to ask whether the person called consents to hear the prerecorded message. And it has to inform the person called if the prerecorded message uses an artificial voice.
Why AB 2905 changed the reading
Before 2024 the artificial voice duty was not in the section. AB 2905 added subdivision (c), which defines artificial intelligence as an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and can infer from its input how to generate outputs, and defines an artificial voice as a voice that is generated or significantly altered using artificial intelligence. A synthetic voice agent is squarely inside that definition, which means the disclosure duty is not a question of interpretation.
What this does to a normal AI call flow
The standard outbound design opens with the agent speaking. On a plain reading of section 2874(a) that design does not work in California, because the opening announcement has to be an unrecorded natural voice made by the person calling, and consent to hear the automated portion has to be taken first. Whether a live agent making the opening and then bridging to the AI satisfies the section, and whether a conversational agent is an automatic dialing-announcing device at all, are both questions for counsel rather than for a vendor.
Calling window
Section 2872(c) prohibits an ADAD from placing a call received by a telephone in California between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m. California time. Two departures from the federal rule are worth building for. The morning boundary is 9 a.m. rather than 8 a.m., and the clock is California time rather than the called party’s local time.
Exemptions
Section 2872(d) exempts schools contacting parents about attendance, health or safety, tax exempt organizations contacting their own members, cable operators and utilities contacting customers about a previously arranged installation, and refineries, chemical plants and nuclear plants for emergency use. There is no sales solicitation exemption in the list.
Florida
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.059, as amended by HB 761 in 2023. Read from a March 2026 Internet Archive capture of the official leg.state.fl.us statute page, because every live Florida legislature host refuses connections. Re-confirm before you rely on it.
- The consent test, narrowed twice over
- Section 501.059(8)(a) prohibits making an unsolicited telephonic sales call involving an automated system for the selection and dialing of telephone numbers, or the playing of a recorded message on connection, without prior express written consent. Two words carry most of the weight. The rule reaches only unsolicited calls, and the system test is selection and dialing rather than selection or dialing. Both narrowings came from HB 761 in 2023.
- What the consent record has to contain
- Under § 501.059(1)(g) the agreement has to be signed, has to name the specific telephone number, has to carry a clear and conspicuous disclosure, and has to state that the signer is not required to sign as a condition of purchase. Electronic signature is valid, and the requirement covers calls, text messages and voicemail.
- Florida runs its own do not call list
- Section 501.059(4) requires screening against Florida’s own no sales solicitation calls list, published quarterly by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the obligation runs against the then-current list rather than a copy you pulled once. There is a narrow carve-out for chapter 475 real estate licensees returning a call prompted by a yard sign or advertisement. Section 501.059(5) adds a separate internal do not call duty covering calls, texts and voicemail.
- Caller ID
- Section 501.059(8)(b) requires transmitting the originating number, and the name where the carrier makes it available. Substituting the seller’s name together with a customer service number that is answered during business hours is permitted.
- Exposure, and the text message brake
- Section 501.059(10)(a) provides actual damages or $500, whichever is greater, plus injunctive relief, and § 501.059(10)(b) allows discretionary treble damages to $1,500 on a willful or knowing finding. For text solicitations specifically, § 501.059(10)(c) requires the called party to reply STOP and then give the solicitor 15 days to stop before suing. That cure period is the single biggest practical brake on Florida text litigation. Enforcement under § 501.059(9) runs through the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, with civil penalty suits available to the department or the Attorney General.
Maryland
Md. Code, Com. Law §§ 14-4501 to 14-4503, Subtitle 45. Stop the Spam Calls Act of 2023, SB 90, Ch. 413, amended by HB 1228, 2024, Ch. 214. Effective January 1, 2024.
- Effective date, stated correctly
- January 1, 2024, not January 1, 2025. The enrolled chapter struck the original October 1, 2023 date and replaced it with January 1, 2024.
- What triggers the consent requirement
- Automated selection or dialing of numbers, or a recorded or artificial voice message. That is § 14-4502(a)(3), and an AI voice agent placing outbound solicitation calls sits squarely inside both halves of it.
- What the consent record has to contain
- Under § 14-4501(d) the signed agreement has to name the specific telephone number being called and has to state that the signer is not required to sign as a condition of purchase. Electronic signature is valid. The requirement reaches calls, texts and voicemail alike.
- Other conduct rules
- Caller ID spoofing or blocking is prohibited, and so is intentionally altering the caller’s voice to disguise identity in order to defraud, § 14-4502(b) and (c)(3). Voice alteration to defraud is a fraud provision rather than a ban on synthetic voice, but it is worth knowing it exists when your agent’s voice is generated.
- Exposure
- A private right of action was added by HB 1228 as emergency legislation effective April 25, 2024, at § 14-4503(a)(2), for the greater of $500 or actual damages, trebled if the violation was willful or knowing, and the remedies cannot be waived by agreement. Separately the Maryland TCPA at § 14-3202(b) offers attorney fees plus the greater of $500 per violation or actual damages. A call to a Maryland area code carries a rebuttable presumption that it reached a Maryland resident, § 14-4503(b).
New York
N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 399-p, telemarketing and use of automatic dialing-announcing devices, and section 399-pp, telemarketing practices. Read from the live official source at nysenate.gov on 1 September 2026.
Identification at both ends of the message
Section 399-p(3) requires the device to state, at the beginning of the call, the nature of the call and the name of the person on whose behalf the message is being transmitted, and at the end of the message the address and telephone number of that person. Both halves are duties on the device, which means they belong in the agent’s script rather than in a follow up email. The same subdivision requires the device to disconnect from the line when either party terminates the call.
Number generation
Section 399-p(4) prohibits operating an ADAD that uses a random or sequential number generator to produce a number to be called. A campaign that dials from a supplied consented list is unaffected. A campaign that generates numbers is not.
Numbers you may not dial at all
Section 399-p(5) bars ADAD calls and consumer telephone calls to emergency lines including 911 and E-911, volunteer fire and ambulance services, and to hospitals, nursing homes, residential health care facilities and adult care facilities, including the guest and patient room lines inside them. There is a defense for an inadvertent call where the caller shows good faith efforts and has a procedure in place to prevent a repeat, which in practice means a documented suppression process rather than an apology.
Caller ID
Section 399-p(6-a) prohibits installing or using any blocking device or service to stop the solicitor’s name or number, or the employer’s name or number, from displaying on the recipient’s caller ID.
Exposure and who brings the claim
Enforcement under section 399-p(8) runs through the Attorney General, who may seek an injunction without proving that anyone was injured. For violations of subdivisions 3, 4 or 5 the court may impose a civil penalty of up to $2,000 per call, capped at $20,000 in total. That is a different shape of risk from Maryland or Oklahoma, where a consumer can sue directly, and it means the New York exposure is regulatory rather than class action driven.
Calling window
Section 399-pp(6) prohibits telemarketing to a residence at any time other than between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. local time at the called person’s location.
Oklahoma
Telephone Solicitation Act of 2022, Okla. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 775C.1 to 775C.6, from HB 3168, 2022, c. 290. Effective November 1, 2022 with no later amendment.
- Structure
- Oklahoma reads as a close cousin of Maryland. Same 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. window, same three calls per 24 hours on the same subject matter regardless of the number used, and the same prior express written consent definition requiring the specific number and the not a condition of purchase language.
- Caller ID obligations are stricter than most
- Under § 775C.3(B) the caller ID has to transmit, and the number transmitted has to be answerable and connect back to the solicitor. An unattended callback number is a defect on its face. Intentional voice alteration to disguise identity is prohibited at § 775C.3(C).
- Presumption
- Calls to an Oklahoma area code carry a rebuttable presumption that the recipient is in Oklahoma, § 775C.3(D). Area code based routing decisions do not get you out of the statute.
- Registration is a real gate
- Registration with the Attorney General is required to do business under 15 O.S. § 775A.3, at $250 initially and $100 to renew on a one year term, and § 775A.5 requires a $10,000 bond. Operating unregistered is itself an unlawful practice, which is a violation that exists before any consumer complains.
- Exposure
- Actual damages or $500, whichever is greater, § 775C.6(A), with treble damages up to $1,500 available at the court’s discretion on a willful or knowing finding, § 775C.6(B). The state also runs its own Do Not Call registry under the Telemarketer Restriction Act, 15 O.S. §§ 775B.3 to 775B.6, updated at least quarterly and made available to telemarketers for a fee.
Washington
RCW 19.158 for commercial telephone solicitation, RCW 80.36.390 for do not call, RCW 80.36.400 for automatic dialing and announcing devices, RCW 19.190.060 for text messages, and RCW 19.86 as the remedy vehicle.
- The provision that matters most
- RCW 80.36.400(2) prohibits using an automatic dialing and announcing device for commercial solicitation. The device definition covers a system that automatically dials and transmits a recorded or artificial voice message, and the message counts even when it goes straight to voicemail. There is no prior express written consent exception written into the section. The word “unsolicited” inside the definition of commercial solicitation is the only visible opening, and its scope is a question for counsel.
- Assisting in the transmission
- RCW 80.36.400(3) creates liability for assisting in the transmission, with an affirmative defense for carriers that comply with 47 U.S.C. 227 and 16 CFR 310 and operate a mitigation plan. If you are a platform rather than the seller, that subsection is worth reading closely.
- Conduct rules in place of a daily cap
- Washington does not set a numeric attempts cap. It imposes a 10 second hang up duty, a one year suppression duty once a person asks not to be called again, and a prohibition on selling that person’s contact information.
- Registration
- Mandatory under RCW 19.158.050(1), including for out of state callers soliciting purchasers located in Washington, through the Department of Licensing. Exclusions are listed at RCW 19.158.020, and they are the first thing to check rather than the last.
- One claim we removed
- A commonly repeated line says Washington’s CEMA was amended in 2022 to cover text messages. We could not confirm that and it appears to be wrong, since the text message prohibition predates 2022. Wright v. Lyft, 189 Wn.2d 718, decided in 2017, is the usual reference point. We left the claim off this page rather than repeat it.
Scope
What this guide leaves out, and why
A state guide is only worth reading if it tells you where it stops. This one covers the jurisdictions we could source directly and names the gaps instead of filling them with summaries of other people’s summaries.
- Texas and New Jersey. Both belong on this page and neither is verified line by line yet. We do not publish statutory detail read secondhand from law firm alerts, so they stay off the table until we read the sections themselves. Indiana is in the same position, and its automatic dialing machine statute at IC 24-5-14 is the one most likely to matter to an AI program once it is read. Michigan has the added problem that its legislature host is currently blocking automated access entirely.
- Holiday calling restrictions. Several states restrict solicitation on specific holidays. We could not verify a single one of those to the statute, so there is no holiday section on this page at all. An unverified holiday calendar is worse than none, because teams build suppression rules from it.
- Anything about how a court would rule. Statutory text is not the same as case law, and a private right of action on paper is not a prediction of outcome. That gap is exactly what your attorney is for.
If you operate in a state that is not on this list, the safe default is the strictest pattern visible here. An 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. window in the called party’s local time, a three attempt daily ceiling on the same subject matter, a written consent record that names the specific number, and a registration check before the first campaign. That posture is compliant nearly everywhere and it is cheap to run.
Operations
How to build a program that survives a review
Most enforcement problems are record keeping problems. The rules are knowable. Proving you followed them on a specific call at a specific time is where programs fall down.
- Store the consent basis on the record, not in a spreadsheet somewhere else. For every dial you want the source, the timestamp, the exact language shown, the specific number consented to, and the signature artifact.
- Enforce the calling window against the called party’s location, not the area code alone, and default to the tighter 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. boundary rather than the federal 9 p.m. one.
- Apply a three attempt per 24 hour ceiling per person per subject matter across every number you dial from. Maryland and Oklahoma both write the rule to defeat number rotation.
- Keep one suppression list per seller rather than one per channel. That is the correct build today and it is what the January 2027 cross-channel revocation provision will require.
- Honor revocation within 10 business days as the outer limit, and treat it as immediate in practice. Accept broad opt out phrasing rather than an exact keyword.
- Check registration and bonding before the first campaign in a state, not after a complaint. Washington and Oklahoma both require registration, and operating unregistered is its own violation.
- Disclose that the caller is an AI, and log the disclosure with the recording and transcript. Whatever the local rule says, an undisclosed synthetic voice is the fact pattern that turns a technical dispute into a bad one.
- Get a written read from counsel on any state where an automated or artificial voice ban may apply regardless of consent. Washington is the clear example today.
FAQ
Every rule on this page sits on top of the federal floor set by the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule and the statute at 47 U.S. Code 227. Read both before you build calling windows into a dialer.
Questions teams ask before they dial
Is the FCC one-to-one consent rule in effect?
When does the cross-channel revoke-all requirement start?
Which parts of the 2024 FCC consent order are enforceable right now?
Can we run AI voice outbound into Washington with written consent?
Does ringless voicemail avoid these rules?
What is the tightest calling window we should build to?
How many times can we call the same person in a day?
Do we have to register as a telemarketer?
What are the damages if we get this wrong?
Can an AI voice agent open the call itself in California?
Which state has the tightest morning calling boundary?
Does New York give consumers a private right of action for robocalls?
Does Florida restrict telemarketing calling hours?
Run outbound AI calling with the record to back it up
Consent basis, calling window, attempt count, disclosure, recording and transcript, logged against every dial. Bring us your call flow and your states and we will walk through how it gets enforced.
