$5,000 per knowing violation. That’s what a Montana residential subscriber can recover under MCA 30-14-1605 after receiving more than one telephone solicitation in 12 months in violation of the state’s no-call or caller ID rules. The figure is ten times the federal base amount. But the statute is narrower than it looks: it covers voice communications to residential lines, requires a knowing violation, and gives a due-care defense to companies with real procedures.
What does Montana’s no-call law prohibit?
Solicitations to subscribers on the state no-call list, and solicitations that hide caller ID or fail to identify the caller.
Under MCA 30-14-1602, “A person or entity may not make or cause to be made any telephone solicitation to the telephone line of any residential subscriber in this state” who has given the Department of Justice notice of an objection to solicitations. The state list incorporates the national database under the department’s rules.
MCA 30-14-1604 adds two rules. The caller must, “at the beginning of the call, state clearly the identity of the person or entity initiating the call,” and may not “knowingly use any method to block or otherwise circumvent the residential subscriber’s use of a caller identification service.”
Does Montana’s law cover cell phones and texts?
The text points toward residential voice calls, which gives defendants real arguments on both questions.
The definitions in MCA 30-14-1601 define a “Telephone solicitation” as “any voice communication over a telephone line from a live operator, through the use of an automatic dialing-announcing device, or by other means” for sales purposes. A text message isn’t a voice communication. Subsection (3) defines a “Residential subscriber” as “a person who has subscribed to residential telephone service from a local exchange company” and the people living with them.
That residential-service definition is a natural argument against claims over calls to wireless numbers. Plaintiffs will respond that a cell phone used at home is functionally residential. The Montana statute’s reference to a local exchange company gives that defense more textual support than the federal rules offer.
What calls are excluded?
Calls with permission, calls to recent or current contacts, certain nonprofit calls, and several regulated and local callers.
The same section excludes communications made with “prior express invitation or permission,” and those “by or on behalf of any person or entity with whom a residential subscriber has had a business contact within the past 180 days or has a current business or personal relationship.” Other exclusions cover certain 501(c) organizations using bona fide members, federally licensed entities required to keep their own no-call lists, a natural person “responding to a referral or working from the person’s primary residence,” and Montana-licensed professionals setting appointments.
The “business contact within the past 180 days” language is broader than a purchase requirement. An inquiry, a service call, or a quote request may qualify, and the records proving it are the first thing to collect.
Who can sue, and for what?
A residential subscriber who received more than one violating solicitation in 12 months from the same caller.
MCA 30-14-1605(3) lets that subscriber sue to enjoin the violation and “recover the greater of: (i) the actual monetary loss from a knowing violation; or (ii) $5,000 in damages for each knowing violation.” The state and county attorneys can also seek civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each knowing violation.
The word “knowing” appears in both damages options. A call that reached a listed number through a scrub error or a stale list isn’t the same as a knowing violation, and plaintiffs carry that burden. The statute also gives a full defense: “It is a defense in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to this section that the defendant has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of” the no-call and caller ID rules, under subsection (4).
Federal claims often ride along. The TCPA allows $500 per violation, up to $1,500 if willful or knowing, and its Do Not Call rules in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 apply to wireless numbers that Montana’s statute may not reach.
| Montana rule | Section | Private exposure | Defense to develop |
|---|---|---|---|
| Solicitation to a listed residential subscriber | 30-14-1602 | Greater of actual loss or $5,000 per knowing violation, after more than one call in 12 months | Exclusions; not knowing; due care under 30-14-1605(4) |
| Identify the caller at the start | 30-14-1604(1) | Same | Call recordings and scripts |
| No blocking of caller ID | 30-14-1604(2) | Same | Caller ID settings; not knowing |
| Calls to wireless numbers | 30-14-1601(3) | Disputed | Residential service from a local exchange company |
| Text messages | 30-14-1601(4) | Disputed | Not a voice communication |
Steps to take when a Montana claim arrives
- Preserve call logs, dialer data and consent records for the Montana numbers involved, under a litigation hold.
- Pull opt-out and internal do-not-call logs with dates, and any business contact records from the prior 180 days.
- Pull the state and national no-call scrub records and version dates.
- Collect written procedures, training records, caller ID settings and vendor contracts.
- Have a lawyer review the claim before responding, contacting the subscriber, or offering anything.
Montana demands often cite the $5,000 figure without addressing “knowing” or the exclusions. More on defending Do Not Call claims is available, and a recent post covers how the TCPA interacts with state telemarketing laws.
Questions about Montana’s no-call law
Is the $5,000 automatic for every call?
No. The statute awards $5,000 “for each knowing violation,” and only after the subscriber received more than one violating solicitation within 12 months from the same caller. A defendant that shows due-care procedures under MCA 30-14-1605(4) has a complete defense.
Does Montana’s law apply to marketing texts?
The statute’s definition is limited to “any voice communication over a telephone line,” so texts are a weak fit. Federal Do Not Call rules may still apply to texts, depending on how the court treats them.
Does a quote request count as a business contact?
The statute doesn’t define it. A purchase, an inquiry, a service appointment, or a quote request are all reasonable candidates. Documenting the date and nature of each contact is what makes the exclusion usable.
Can an out-of-state caller be sued in Montana?
Yes. The statute authorizes Montana courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresidents for actions under the section, in the manner provided by law.
Defending Montana no-call claims
If your company has received a Montana no-call demand or lawsuit, the knowing-violation requirement, the 180-day contact exclusion, and the due-care defense 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 statutes. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
Montana Code Annotated 30-14-1601, 30-14-1602, 30-14-1604, 30-14-1605; 47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of May 13, 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.