State Mini-TCPAs: Risk for California Businesses Texting Nationwide

A California company texting customers nationwide answers to more than the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Florida’s Telephone Solicitation Act lets consumers sue over marketing texts on its own terms, and Oklahoma and Maryland adopted laws that track Florida’s language closely. All three use a wider autodialer test than federal law, and Oklahoma and Maryland set 8 p.m. quiet hours. They also carry exemptions and notice rules that narrow a claim, and those rules give a company facing a claim real defenses to test.

Do these state laws reach texts sent from California?

Often, yes. Each of the three main statutes presumes coverage from a local area code.

Florida’s law covers sales calls “from other states or nations to consumers located in Florida,” and a sales call includes a “text message” sent to solicit a sale, under Fla. Stat. § 501.059. The same section adds: “There is a rebuttable presumption that a telephonic sales call made to any area code in this state is made to a Florida resident or to a person in this state at the time of the call.” Oklahoma’s statute has a matching presumption in 15 O.S. § 775C.3. Maryland’s, in Com. Law § 14-4503, presumes a Maryland resident or a person “reasonably presumed to reside or have a place of business in the State.” Our post on Florida’s Telephone Solicitation Act covers the 2023 amendments in more detail.

A customer with a 305 number who moved to San Diego years ago is presumed to be a Florida resident or in Florida, but the presumption is rebuttable. Rebutting it takes evidence of where the person lived and where the person was when the texts arrived, so I’d keep address and location data searchable before a claim arrives.

California’s own rules are a separate layer, covered in our map of California telemarketing and text laws.

How does Florida’s Telephone Solicitation Act work after the 2023 amendments?

It bars automated sales texts without written consent, but 2023 amendments narrowed it and added a pre-suit STOP notice.

The autodialer test. The rule bars an unsolicited sales call involving “an automated system for the selection and dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed to a number called” without the called party’s prior express written consent, under § 501.059(8)(a). Before 2023 the statute said “or” where it now says “and,” a change made by the 2023 session law. The Supreme Court held in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid that an autodialer must have “the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be called.” Florida has no number-generator requirement, so Duguid doesn’t end a Florida claim. But the 2023 change requires automation in both picking and dialing the numbers, so a platform that sends to a list the business uploaded gives a defendant a real argument on selection.

Unsolicited only. The same amendment limited the rule to “unsolicited” calls, which excludes calls made at the person’s express request, calls about an uncompleted debt or contract, and calls to “a person with whom the telephone solicitor has a prior or existing business relationship,” under § 501.059(1)(k). For a retailer texting its own buyers, it’s the first defense I’d check.

Consent can be a click or a reply. The consent signature includes “checking a box indicating consent or responding affirmatively to receiving text messages,” under § 501.059(1)(h), though the agreement still needs the statute’s disclosures.

The 15-day STOP notice. Before suing for damages over text solicitations, the recipient must reply STOP, and may sue only if the sender “continues to send text messages to the called party 15 days after the called party provided notice to the telephone solicitor to cease such text messages,” under § 501.059(10)(c). The session law, approved May 25, 2023, applies these changes to later suits and to putative class actions not yet certified then.

On the statute’s text, a company that stops within those 15 days and sends nothing afterward except one confirmation text leaves the recipient without a claim under section 501.059 for those texts. A complaint that doesn’t plead the STOP reply and the later texts is the first thing I’d move against.

Damages, and fees for both sides. A called party can “Recover actual damages or $500, whichever is greater,” and a court may increase the award up to three times that amount if it finds the violation willful or knowing, under § 501.059(10). The fee clause is written for either side: “In any civil litigation resulting from a transaction involving a violation of this section, the prevailing party, after judgment in the trial court and exhaustion of all appeals, if any, shall receive his or her reasonable attorney fees and costs from the nonprevailing party,” under § 501.059(11). Fees come only after a final judgment, and a defendant that wins by showing no violation should expect a fight over the opening clause, but I’d still raise it early in settlement talks.

Quiet hours sit in a different statute. Florida’s Telemarketing Act bars “a commercial telephone solicitation phone call before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m. local time” and more than three solicitation calls in 24 hours “on the same subject matter or issue, regardless of the phone number used to make the call,” under § 501.616(6). That section speaks of phone calls, not texts, and its private remedy differs: a person injured by a violation “may bring a civil action for recovery of actual damages and/or punitive damages,” under § 501.625. There’s no $500 minimum there.

Is Oklahoma’s law stricter than Florida’s?

On the autodialer test, yes. Oklahoma’s Telephone Solicitation Act of 2022 took effect November 1, 2022. The official code shows no amendment since.

The act bars a commercial telephonic sales call that involves “an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers” or a recorded message without prior express written consent, under 15 O.S. § 775C.3. That’s the “or” wording Florida dropped in 2023, so automation in either selecting or dialing can be enough. The act doesn’t define “commercial telephonic sales call,” though its consent definition in § 775C.2 refers to calls placed “by telephone call, text message, or voicemail transmission,” which gives plaintiffs an argument that it reaches texts.

Oklahoma also bars solicitation “phone calls” made “before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m. local time in the called person’s time zone” and more than three to a person in 24 hours on the same subject, under § 775C.4. A called party may “Recover actual damages or Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), whichever is greater,” and a court may increase the award up to three times that amount for willful or knowing violations, under § 775C.6.

The defenses live in the exemptions. Section 775C.5 lists 26 categories, including licensed insurance agents, real estate licensees, and businesses soliciting customers “who have an existing business relationship with or who have previously purchased from the business enterprise for which the solicitor is calling if the solicitor is operating under the same business enterprise.” Read literally, item 13 of that list exempts “A commercial telephone seller,” with no qualifier. Florida’s parallel list in § 501.604 adds a licensing qualifier. A court may reject that reading because it would also cancel § 775C.4’s time limits, which bind commercial telephone sellers, so I wouldn’t rely on it alone.

What makes Maryland’s Stop the Spam Calls Act different?

Its exemptions are narrower and don’t touch the quiet-hours and frequency rules. The law took effect January 1, 2024, under 2023 Md. Laws ch. 413, and an emergency amendment approved April 25, 2024, 2024 Md. Laws ch. 214, added the express private right of action.

Maryland’s consent rule uses the broad “or” wording: no telephone solicitation involving an “automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers” or a recorded message without prior express written consent, under Com. Law § 14-4502(a)(3). “Telephone solicitation” borrows the Public Utilities Article’s definition, “an organized activity, program, or campaign to communicate by telephone with residents of Maryland” to sell goods or services, under Pub. Util. § 8-205. That definition doesn’t mention texts, though the consent definition in § 14-4501 does.

The exemptions in § 14-4502(a)(1) state that they apply to “This subsection,” meaning the consent rule only. The time and frequency limits sit in subsection (c), which bars solicitations, “including a call made through automated dialing or a recorded message,” “during the hours between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m.” and “More than three times to the same called party” in a 24-hour period on the same subject.

A called party may sue “to recover damages up to $500 or actual damages, whichever is greater,” and the court may award up to three times that amount for willful or knowing violations, under § 14-4503. Unlike Florida and Oklahoma, $500 is a ceiling, not a floor. The same section says the subtitle’s requirements and remedies “may not be waived by an agreement, unless the agreement is part of a settlement of a legal dispute or action,” with an exception for the consent rule.

Which other states let consumers sue over calls and texts?

Texas. Under Bus. & Com. Code § 305.053, “A person who receives a communication that violates 47 U.S.C. Section 227, a regulation adopted under that provision, or Subchapter A may bring an action in this state against the person who originates the communication,” for $500 per violation or actual damages, or up to $1,500 if the violation was knowing or intentional. Since September 1, 2025, Texas’s registration chapter defines telephone solicitation to include “a transmission of a text or graphic message or of an image,” under § 302.001, as amended by S.B. 140. Soliciting “a purchaser located in this state” without a registration certificate violates § 302.101, and § 302.303 makes that actionable under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Our post on Texas SB 140 covers the 2025 changes for marketing texts.

Virginia. The Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act covers texts to Virginia area codes and residents, and limits solicitations to “between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. local time at the contacted person’s location” unless the person consented, under Va. Code § 59.1-511. Since January 1, 2026, a text recipient opts out by replying STOP or UNSUBSCRIBE, and the request must be honored for at least 10 years, under § 59.1-514. Damages escalate: “$500 for a first violation, $1,000 for a second violation, and $5,000 for each subsequent violation,” a court may raise a willful first or second violation to as much as $5,000, and a plaintiff may recover attorney fees, under § 59.1-515. For opt-out and Do Not Call claims only, a company that “established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of this section” has an affirmative defense under § 59.1-514(C).

Washington. Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act bars commercial texts to Washington residents under RCW 19.190.060, with an exception where the subscriber “clearly and affirmatively consented in advance to receive these text messages,” under RCW 19.190.070. The 2026 legislature cut the recipient’s damages to “$100, or actual damages, whichever is greater,” under RCW 19.190.040, effective June 11, 2026. Under the note to RCW 19.190.020, the cut applies to suits filed on or after that date, whenever the texts were sent. Our post on Washington CEMA text message claims covers how the state’s courts have read the law.

How the main state laws compare to the TCPA

Law	Automated-system test	Quiet hours	Daily limit	Private damages	Defenses to check first
Federal TCPA	Random or sequential number generator (Duguid)	8 a.m. to 9 p.m.	None	Autodialer claims $500 or actual loss, quiet-hours and Do Not Call claims up to $500 (up to 3x if willful or knowing)	Consent, Duguid, reasonable-procedures defense
Florida, § 501.059 and § 501.616	Selection and dialing (since May 25, 2023)	8 a.m. to 8 p.m., phone calls (Telemarketing Act)	3 calls per 24 hours, same subject (Telemarketing Act)	$500 or actual under § 501.059 (up to 3x if willful or knowing), actual or punitive under the Telemarketing Act	STOP notice, existing relationship
Oklahoma, § 775C	Selection or dialing	8 a.m. to 8 p.m., phone calls (texts unsettled)	3 calls per 24 hours, same subject	$500 or actual, up to 3x if willful or knowing	26 exemptions, including existing relationship
Maryland, § 14-4502	Selection or dialing	8 a.m. to 8 p.m., telephone solicitations (texts unsettled)	3 per 24 hours, same subject	Up to $500 or actual, up to 3x if willful or knowing	Texts not named in solicitation definition
Virginia, § 59.1-510 to -518	No autodialer rule	8 a.m. to 9 p.m.	None	$500, $1,000, then $5,000 per violation (up to $5,000 if willful), plus fees	Prior consent, and reasonable procedures for opt-out and Do Not Call claims

The federal quiet-hours rule is in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1). A private claim for breaking it runs through 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), which requires “more than one telephone call within any 12-month period” and allows “up to $500 in damages for each such violation,” while autodialer claims under § 227(b)(3) carry $500 or actual loss, whichever is greater.

What should a California company texting nationwide do differently?

I’d run one national program to the strictest rules above. Whether Oklahoma’s and Maryland’s time and frequency limits reach texts is unsettled, but complying costs little. I think the cheapest answer is a sending window between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. in the recipient’s time zone, no more than three marketing messages to a person in 24 hours on the same subject, and a STOP process that works on the first reply. Check other states’ calling hours too.

Florida counts a checkbox or an affirmative text reply as a signature, while Oklahoma and Maryland don’t list those methods, so keep a consent record showing the number, the disclosure language, and the date and method of agreement.

When a state claim arrives

1. Put a litigation hold on texting logs, platform data, and each number’s consent record, with timestamps in the recipient’s time zone.
2. Pull the STOP and opt-out log with dates, and line up every message sent after each STOP reply against Florida’s 15-day window.
3. Gather address and location data for each number to answer the area-code presumption.
4. Collect the platform contract, campaign settings, and vendor agreements, which go to the automated-system question.
5. Talk to a lawyer before replying to the demand, contacting the consumer, or offering money.

The firm’s page on TCPA litigation defense explains how claims involving state mini-TCPA texting laws move from a demand letter to a lawsuit.

Questions businesses ask about state mini-TCPAs

Does Florida’s 15-day STOP rule apply to phone calls?

No. The pre-suit notice in section 501.059(10)(c) covers actions “for text message solicitations.” Calls and voicemails have no comparable notice step.

If a text is legal under the federal TCPA, can a state law still make it actionable?

Yes. A platform that isn’t an autodialer under Duguid can still be an automated system under these state laws, and the federal 9 p.m. cutoff is an hour later than Oklahoma’s and Maryland’s.

Do these laws apply to a company based in California?

They can, if the texts went to people in those states. Each of the three main statutes presumes that a call to a local area code reached someone it covers, and that reaches texts to the extent the statute does. I’d pull records showing where the recipient lived and was at the time.

If a state telephone solicitation claim lands on your desk

If your company is accused of sending automated marketing texts to Florida, Oklahoma, or Maryland numbers, the consent records and the STOP log are where the defense starts. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims under state telephone solicitation laws. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921. If the claimant has filed similar suits before, our guide to defending serial TCPA plaintiffs covers how to respond.

Sources

Federal law: 47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200; Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021).

Florida: Fla. Stat. § 501.059; Laws of Fla. ch. 2023-150; Fla. Stat. § 501.604; § 501.616; § 501.625.

Oklahoma: 15 O.S. § 775C.2, § 775C.3, § 775C.4, § 775C.5, § 775C.6.

Maryland: Com. Law § 14-4501, § 14-4502, § 14-4503; Pub. Util. § 8-205; 2023 Md. Laws ch. 413; 2024 Md. Laws ch. 214.

Texas: Bus. & Com. Code ch. 302 and ch. 305; S.B. 140 (2025).

Virginia: Va. Code § 59.1-510, § 59.1-511, § 59.1-514, § 59.1-515, § 59.1-518; S.B. 1339 (2025), ch. 626.

Washington: RCW 19.190.020, RCW 19.190.060, RCW 19.190.040, RCW 19.190.070; 2026 Wash. Sess. Laws ch. 135 (ESHB 2274).

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of June 25, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Courts and the FCC change the rules in this area often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.