North Dakota Telephone Solicitation Law: Texts, Robocalls, $2,000

North Dakota treats a text message as a telephone solicitation, bans most prerecorded or synthesized voice messages without the subscriber’s consent, and requires live callers to identify themselves in more detail than federal law does. A person who gets a solicitation that breaks the chapter can sue for actual damages or up to $2,000 per violation, whichever is greater. That’s four times the federal base amount, so even a small North Dakota campaign carries real exposure.

Does North Dakota’s law cover text messages?

Yes. The statute says so in its definitions, and it closes several exemptions to texts specifically.

Chapter 51-28 of the North Dakota Century Code defines “Message” as “any telephone call, including voice, text, or other electronic communication, regardless of its content.” Its definition of “Telephone solicitation” is “any voice, text, or other electronic communication over a telephone line for the purpose of encouraging charitable contributions, or the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, services, or merchandise.” The definition of “telephone line” reaches wireless and VoIP service as well as landlines.

The exemptions are where the text-message language matters most. The chapter excludes political calls, polling calls, and calls that only set up a later face-to-face sales meeting, but each of those exclusions ends with the phrase “unless the communication is a text message,” according to the chapter’s definitions. A political or appointment-setting campaign that runs by phone may be outside the solicitation rules. The same campaign run by text is inside them.

That’s a deliberate legislative choice, and it means federal arguments about whether a text is a “call” don’t carry over. Whatever courts decide about the federal Do Not Call provision, North Dakota’s statute answers the question in its own text.

What communications fall outside the definition?

Several, and two of them do most of the work for ordinary businesses.

Under the definitions section, a telephone solicitation doesn’t include communications “To any subscriber with that subscriber’s prior express written request, consent, invitation, or permission,” or communications “By or on behalf of any person with whom the subscriber has an established personal or business relationship.” The statute defines an established business relationship as one based on the consumer’s purchase, rental, or lease of the seller’s goods or services, a financial transaction, or a free trial newspaper subscription “within the twenty-four months immediately preceding the date of a telemarketing call,” per the chapter.

Two practical points follow. The consent exemption requires a written request or permission, so a verbal yes on a sales call doesn’t fit it cleanly. And the 24-month window is longer than the federal established business relationship period for purchases, which is 18 months under the FCC’s rule. A company that tracks customer dates for the federal rule already has the data it needs, but should check which window its suppression logic actually uses.

When are prerecorded or synthesized voice messages allowed?

Only with the subscriber’s consent, or when a live operator gets consent first, unless an exception applies.

Section 51-28-02 of the chapter provides that a caller may not use an automatic dialing-announcing device “or deliver a prerecorded or synthesized voice message to a subscriber unless the subscriber has knowingly requested, consented to, permitted, or authorized receipt of the message or the message is immediately preceded by a live operator who obtains the subscriber’s consent before the message is delivered.” The ban isn’t limited to sales calls. It applies to recorded messages generally.

The exceptions in the same section cover public safety emergency notices, school district messages, “a message to a subscriber with whom the caller has a current business relationship,” and messages advising an employee of a work schedule. Note the wording: “current” business relationship, not the 24-month established relationship from the definitions. A lapsed customer may still fall within the definition’s exemption from the definition of telephone solicitation while sitting outside the recorded-message exception. Companies that use AI voice or prerecorded reminders should treat those as separate tests.

When a live operator introduces the message, section 51-28-03 requires the operator to disclose the business name, the purpose of the message, the goods or services being promoted, and, if applicable, that the message seeks payment or a commitment of funds.

What must a live caller say, and when can they call?

The caller’s name, phone number, city and state, and the business name, at the start of the call, and only between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m.

Section 51-28-07 of the chapter requires a caller making a telephone solicitation to “immediately and clearly state at the beginning of the call the caller’s true first and last name, the caller’s telephone number, the caller’s city and state of location, and the name of the business on whose behalf the telephone solicitation is made.” That’s more than the federal rule asks of a live caller. Call center scripts written to the federal standard often give a first name and a company name and stop there.

The time limit in section 51-28-05 bars any telephone solicitation “before eight a.m. or after nine p.m. at the telephone subscriber’s location,” which matches the federal window. Section 51-28-06 bars solicitations to a subscriber who has been on the state list or the national Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty-one days. And section 51-28-08 bars a solicitor from knowingly blocking or circumventing caller ID.

What does a violation cost?

Up to $2,000 per violation in a private suit, plus fees, and separate state penalties.

The private-action section, 51-28-11, provides that “Any person who receives a telephone solicitation or message in violation of this chapter may bring an action to enjoin such violation, or for damages, or both.” The court “may award the plaintiff the plaintiff’s actual damages or damages up to two thousand dollars for each violation, whichever is greater,” and may award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. Section 51-28-19 makes “each telephone solicitation or message” a separate violation.

Two features of that section help a defendant. The award is discretionary (“may award”), and $2,000 is a ceiling, not a floor. A court has room to award far less for a technical violation. The fee award is discretionary too. That doesn’t make the exposure small, but it does make the amount a real subject of argument. The federal statute, by contrast, sets $500 per violation as the base award, which a court may increase up to $1,500 if the violation was willful or knowing.

Caller ID spoofing is treated more harshly. Under section 51-28-08.1, a person who receives a call that knowingly transmits misleading caller ID information “with the intent to defraud or cause harm,” or displays a number the caller doesn’t own or have permission to use, can recover actual damages or “not less than five thousand dollars and not more than ten thousand dollars per violation,” with mandatory fees. There’s an exception for a caller who reasonably believes, from the number called, that the recipient isn’t in North Dakota.

Steps to take if a North Dakota claim arrives

1. Preserve the call and text logs, dialer and platform data, and consent records for every North Dakota number involved, under a litigation hold.
2. Export the opt-out and internal do-not-call history for those numbers, with timestamps.
3. Pull the national Registry and North Dakota list downloads used for scrubbing, with their dates.
4. Collect the scripts, recorded and AI-voice message files, caller ID settings, and vendor contracts for the campaign.
5. Hold off on answering a demand letter or contacting the recipient until a lawyer has reviewed the file.

North Dakota claims usually come down to two facts: whether the communication fits a definitional exemption, and how many separate messages there were. Businesses defending them can find more on how state and federal calling claims are defended, and related posts cover Oklahoma’s Telephone Solicitation Act and state Do Not Call registries.

Questions about North Dakota’s solicitation law

Does North Dakota’s law reach a company located in another state?

It applies to callers who contact subscribers in North Dakota, and the chapter defines a caller as anyone who attempts to contact or contacts “a subscriber in this state.” The company’s own location isn’t the test. A California business that texts North Dakota residents should assume the chapter applies to those messages and set up its scheduling and suppression lists accordingly.

Are political texts exempt in North Dakota?

No. The chapter excludes calls by or on behalf of political parties and candidates, among others, from the definition of telephone solicitation, but that exclusion ends with “unless the communication is a text message,” according to the statute. The same carve-back applies to polling calls. Campaigns and advocacy groups that rely on texting should treat North Dakota as a state where those messages are regulated solicitations.

Is a recorded appointment reminder allowed?

It depends on the relationship. The prerecorded message ban has an exception for a message to a subscriber with whom the caller has a “current business relationship,” under section 51-28-02, and for work schedule notices to employees. A reminder to an active customer fits that exception more comfortably than a recorded message to a former customer or a lead, which needs the subscriber’s consent or a live operator who obtains it first.

Does consent under the federal rules satisfy North Dakota?

Often, but check the form. The North Dakota exemption requires the subscriber’s “prior express written request, consent, invitation, or permission.” A federal-compliant written consent should meet that language. Verbal consent, or consent captured only in a call recording, is a weaker fit, and that gap matters most for telemarketing to people who aren’t current customers.

Defending a state calling claim

If your company has received a demand or lawsuit under North Dakota’s solicitation chapter, the definitions and the count of separate messages usually decide what the claim is worth. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving state telephone solicitation statutes. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

North Dakota Century Code chapter 51-28; 47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as published in the eCFR on May 2, 2026.

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of May 2, 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.