State Do Not Call Lists: The Federal-Only Scrub Trap
A company that scrubs only against the National Do Not Call Registry can still call numbers that Texas or Florida protect. Both states keep their own lists, and each one combines the federal Registry’s in-state numbers with consumers who signed up only with the state. Texas lets consumers sue over repeat calls to its list, and since September 1, 2025, makes a violation of its telemarketing chapter a deceptive trade practice. Scrubbing against each state list you call into, and documenting it, is the defense.
Why isn’t the federal Registry scrub enough?
Because federal law lets states keep their own, larger lists.
The TCPA’s state-law clause says that, with exceptions, “nothing in this section or in the regulations prescribed under this section shall preempt any State law that imposes more restrictive intrastate requirements or regulations on, or which prohibits,” among other things, “the making of telephone solicitations,” under 47 U.S.C. § 227(f)(1). The next paragraph adds a condition: a state “may not, in its regulation of telephone solicitations, require the use of any database, list, or listing system that does not include the part of such single national database that relates to such State,” under § 227(f)(2).
So a state list must include the federal Registry’s in-state numbers, and it can include more. Texas and Florida do exactly that. A federal scrub catches the overlap, not the state-only sign-ups.
For texts, the private Do Not Call claim faces an added defense in 2025. In Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01074 (C.D. Ill. July 21, 2025), the court held that “Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA does not regulate text messages,” and in Davis v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-477 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2025), the court concluded that a text message isn’t a telephone call under § 227(c)(5) and dismissed the claim on the merits. In Wilson v. MEDVIDI Inc., No. 5:25-cv-03996 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2025), the court read “telephone call” in § 227(c) to cover the text messages at issue, though it dismissed the complaint on other grounds with leave to amend. Jones is on appeal to the Seventh Circuit. These district court rulings bind no other court, so I’d keep scrubbing texts while raising the argument in any texts-only Do Not Call case.
How does the Texas no-call list work?
It combines state and federal numbers, and the clock gives callers 60 days.
Under Texas Business and Commerce Code § 304.051(b), “The Texas no-call list is a combined list consisting of the name and telephone numbers of: (1) each consumer in this state who has requested to be on that list; and (2) each person in the portion of the national do-not-call registry maintained by the United States government that relates to this state.” Under § 304.052, “A telemarketer may not make a telemarketing call to a telephone number published on the Texas no-call list more than 60 days after the date the telephone number appears on the current list.”
State-only entries don’t last forever. “An entry on the Texas no-call list expires on the third anniversary of the date the entry is first published on the list,” and may be renewed for three-year periods, under § 304.053(a). That’s different from the federal Registry, where registrations are honored indefinitely.
Texas defines a “telephone call” to include “a transmission of a text or graphic message or of an image, to a mobile telephone number,” under § 304.002(10). Texts are covered by the chapter’s own terms.
Which Texas calls are exempt?
Several categories, under § 304.004. The chapter doesn’t apply to a call made in connection with an established business relationship, or with a relationship that has ended if the call comes before the later of the consumer’s first appearance on the Texas list or “the first anniversary of the date of termination.” It also exempts business-to-business calls (unless the business has asked not to be called), debt collection calls, and certain calls by state licensees that aren’t made by an automated dialing system and lead to a face-to-face presentation before payment.
In my view, the established-relationship exemption is the one most callers can document, and it’s worth tagging every customer record with a last-transaction date for that reason.
Vendor contracts deserve a look too. Many calling and texting platforms offer federal Registry scrubbing as a default setting. State-list scrubbing may be an add-on, or may not be offered at all. If your contract doesn’t say who scrubs against each state list, assume nobody does, and fix that before the next campaign into Texas or Florida.
What can a Texas consumer recover?
The original private action has conditions. A consumer on the Texas list “is presumed to be adversely affected by a telemarketer who calls the consumer more than once,” and may sue over “the second or a subsequent violation” only after notifying the telemarketer, filing a verified complaint with a state agency within 30 days of the call, and waiting to see whether the agency acts before the 121st day, under § 304.257(a). For a willful or knowing violation of § 304.052, the court “may award damages in an amount not to exceed $500 for each violation.”
Then the 2025 legislature added a new route. Senate Bill 140, effective September 1, 2025, added § 304.2581: “A violation of this chapter is a false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice under Subchapter E, Chapter 17,” and “A public or private right or remedy prescribed by Subchapter E, Chapter 17, may be used to enforce this chapter.” Subchapter E of Chapter 17 is the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Expect plaintiffs to argue that the DTPA route avoids § 304.257’s pre-suit conditions. In my view, defendants have good arguments that the specific procedure in § 304.257 still governs no-call claims, and courts will have to sort out how the two provisions fit together. Our post on Texas SB 140 covers the bill’s registration changes.
How does Florida’s list work?
Under Florida’s statute, the state’s consumer agency keeps a “no sales solicitation calls” listing, and it folds in the federal Registry’s Florida numbers. If the FTC maintains a national database, “the department shall include those listings from the national database which relate to Florida in the listing established under this section,” under Fla. Stat. § 501.059(3)(d).
The core rule is in § 501.059(4): “No telephone solicitor shall make or cause to be made any unsolicited telephonic sales call to any residential, mobile, or telephonic paging device telephone number if the number for that telephone appears in the then-current quarterly listing published by the department.” Under the same statute, a telephonic sales call includes “a telephone call, text message, or voicemail transmission.” Calls that aren’t “unsolicited” under the statute’s definition fall outside the listing rule: calls made in response to an express request, calls primarily about an existing debt or contract not yet paid or performed, and calls “To a person with whom the telephone solicitor has a prior or existing business relationship.”
The remedy is “actual damages or $500, whichever is greater,” with discretionary trebling for willful or knowing violations, under § 501.059(10). Our post on Florida text claims covers the STOP-and-wait rule for text claims.
State-list claims and the defenses that answer them
| Claim theory | Statute | Exposure | Defenses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Call to a number on the Texas no-call list | Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 304.052, 304.257 | Up to $500 per violation if willful or knowing, after pre-suit steps | Number listed fewer than 60 days, an exemption under § 304.004, or missing pre-suit steps |
| Texas chapter 304 violation pleaded under the DTPA | Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 304.2581 | DTPA remedies, as plaintiffs will argue | Chapter 304 exemptions, and argument that § 304.257’s procedure governs |
| Call to a number on Florida’s listing | Fla. Stat. § 501.059(4), (10) | Actual damages or $500, whichever is greater, and up to three times that if willful or knowing | Business relationship, express request, the number wasn’t on the then-current quarterly listing, or, for texts, no STOP reply and 15-day wait under § 501.059(10)(c) |
| Federal Registry claim | 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) | Up to $500 or actual loss, whichever is greater, and up to $1,500 if willful or knowing | Federal safe harbor, the more-than-one-call threshold, written permission, or an established business relationship |
The federal rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, and the federal damages at 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).
What to gather when a state-list claim arrives
The firm’s TCPA defense attorneys in California page covers how state and federal claims move together in litigation. When a claim arrives:
- Put a litigation hold on the call and text logs, platform data, and the consent and transaction records for the number.
- Export the internal do-not-call and opt-out records, with dates.
- Pull every scrub record: the federal Registry versions and, separately, the Texas and Florida list versions used, with download dates.
- Collect vendor contracts showing who was responsible for state-list scrubbing, plus scripts and recorded messages.
- Talk to a lawyer before responding to the claim, contacting the consumer, or offering to pay.
Questions about state Do Not Call lists
If we scrub against the federal Registry, are we covered in Texas?
Not fully. The Texas list includes the federal Registry’s Texas numbers plus consumers who registered only with Texas, under § 304.051(b). A federal-only scrub misses the second group.
How often do we need to download the Texas and Florida lists?
Texas gives telemarketers 60 days after a number appears on the current list, and Florida’s statute refers to “the then-current quarterly listing.” I’d download both each time they’re updated and scrub before every campaign, keeping the version dates. The federal safe harbor uses a 31-day standard, so a monthly cycle covers all three.
Do these state lists apply to texts?
Yes, by their terms. Texas defines a telephone call to include a text transmission to a mobile number, and Florida’s telephonic sales call includes “a telephone call, text message, or voicemail transmission,” per § 501.059.
Defending state no-call claims
If your company is accused of calling or texting numbers on Texas or Florida’s no-call lists, the state-list scrub records, exemption evidence, and the plaintiff’s pre-suit steps usually decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims under state no-call laws. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The federal statute is 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as of December 28, 2025. The Texas statute is Business and Commerce Code chapter 304, including § 304.2581 as added by S.B. 140 (2025), effective September 1, 2025. The Florida statute is Fla. Stat. § 501.059, last amended in 2023.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of December 28, 2025. 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.