Mini-TCPA

Mini-TCPA is industry shorthand for a state telemarketing statute that operates alongside the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. No statute uses the term about itself. Three of them are quoted below, and the reason to read all three is that they are built three different ways.

Three statutes, three different designs

Maryland points at the federal acts and adopts them. Florida writes its own definition of a telephonic sales call, its own consent test and its own damages. Michigan prohibits the recorded message inside its own definition of a solicitation, with no written-consent mechanism attached. One dialling practice can sit on different sides of those three lines, which is why the state is the first question rather than a detail.

Florida counts a text message as a telephonic sales call

Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(j) defines a telephonic sales call as a telephone call, text message or voicemail transmission made for the purpose of soliciting a sale, soliciting an extension of credit, or obtaining information that will or may be used for direct solicitation. Subsection (8)(a) then prohibits making or knowingly allowing an unsolicited telephonic sales call that involves an automated system for the selection and dialing of telephone numbers, or a recorded message on connection, without the prior express written consent of the called party.

The word unsolicited carries weight there. Section 501.059(1)(k) excludes from that term a call made in response to an express request of the person called, and a call to a person with whom the solicitor has a prior or existing business relationship. Subsection (5) has no such qualifier: it bars an outbound call, text message or voicemail transmission to a consumer, business or donor who has previously said they do not wish to receive one. Section 501.059(1)(g) sets out what Florida requires of prior express written consent, and § 501.059(8)(d) creates a rebuttable presumption that a call to a Florida area code is made to a person in the state. For the federal consent instrument, see prior express written consent and what TCPA consent is on a mortgage lead.

Source: Fla. Stat. § 501.059, Telephone solicitation, as published in The 2026 Florida Statutes by the Florida Legislature at leg.state.fl.us, read in full on 20 September 2026. It supports the definitions at (1)(g), (1)(j) and (1)(k), the prohibition at (8)(a), the presumption at (8)(d), the prior-objection rule at (5), and the private action, damages and treble provision at (10)(a) and (10)(b). Subsection (10)(c) is the source for the text-message precondition. No calling-hours figure is attributed to this section because the current text contains none.

Maryland turns a federal violation into a state claim

Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-3201 states that a person may not violate the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act as implemented in the Telemarketing Sales Rule, or the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as implemented in 47 C.F.R. Part 64, Subpart L. Section 14-3202(a) makes a violation of the subtitle an unfair or deceptive trade practice under Title 13, and § 14-3202(b) lets an affected individual recover reasonable attorney fees plus the greater of $500 for each violation or actual damages.

Section 14-3202(c) adds the multiplier that matters most in that design: each prohibited telephone solicitation, and each prohibited practice during a telephone solicitation, is a separate violation. Nothing in those two sections writes a new substantive rule. What they change is who may sue and what the arithmetic looks like. The federal registry the incorporated rule refers to is described in national do not call registry, and the company-specific version in internal do not call list.

Source: Md. Code, Com. Law §§ 14-3201 and 14-3202, Statutes Text, Article Commercial Law, published by the Maryland General Assembly at mgaleg.maryland.gov, read on 20 September 2026. Section 14-3201 supports the incorporation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101 to 6108 with 16 C.F.R. Part 310 and of 47 U.S.C. § 227 with 47 C.F.R. Part 64, Subpart L. Section 14-3202 supports the unfair or deceptive trade practice characterisation, the $500 or actual damages and attorney fees remedy, and the per-solicitation counting rule.

Michigan prohibits the recorded message rather than conditioning it

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.111a(1) provides that a person shall not make a telephone solicitation that consists in whole or in part of a recorded message. The federal position conditions a prerecorded marketing call on written consent. This sentence does not condition it. The work is done instead by the definition: § 445.111(m) defines a telephone solicitation as a voice communication over a telephone encouraging the recipient to purchase, rent or invest during that call.

That definition carries the exclusions. It does not reach a voice communication made with the subscriber's express invitation or permission given before the call, nor one to an existing customer as § 445.111(j) defines that term. Because the unit is a voice communication, a text message is outside it, which is the opposite of the Florida definition above and is the clearest illustration on this page that there is no single national answer. Texting is treated separately in can I text a purchased mortgage lead.

Source: Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.111, 445.111a and 445.111b, Home Solicitation Sales, 1971 PA 227, published by the Michigan Legislature at legislature.mi.gov and marked MCL Complete Through PA 91 of 2026, read on 20 September 2026. Section 445.111a(1) supports the prohibition on a telephone solicitation consisting in whole or in part of a recorded message, and § 445.111a(5) the designation of a federal do-not-call list as the state list. Section 445.111(m) supports the voice-communication definition and its exclusions for prior express invitation or permission and for an existing customer, and § 445.111(j) defines existing customer.

What the vacated federal rule left standing

A federal vacatur operates on a federal rule. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the federal one-to-one consent rule on 24 January 2025, and that order did not amend the text of any statute quoted above. Each of the three was read in its currently published form on 20 September 2026 at the legislature that publishes it, and each still contains the provisions cited. Whether a state statute changes is a question about that state's legislature.

Three states, and the rest of the map is not here

Florida, Maryland and Michigan appear on this page because their statute text could be opened at the publishing state legislature and quoted. Other states have telemarketing statutes that are not covered, and no attempt is made here to count them or to summarise them from secondary material. Related federal ground sits in who regulates mortgage lead generation, calling time restrictions, revocation of consent and is there a legal limit on calling a lead.

One drafting detail is worth recording because it is inside the statute rather than around it. Fla. Stat. § 501.059(10)(c) requires a called party, before starting a damages action over text message solicitations, to reply STOP to the number the messages came from, and gives the solicitor 15 days to cease. The claim exists only if messages continue after that. A state statute can add a step to its own remedy as readily as it can add a rule.