Idaho’s private remedy for telephone solicitation violations belongs to “Any person who purchases goods or services pursuant to a telephone solicitation and thereby suffers damages,” under Idaho Code § 48-1007. Someone who only received a call isn’t on that list. The Idaho Telephone Solicitation Act still carries state penalties of up to $5,000 per no-call violation, along with registration rules and sales that can be voided. For a business facing an Idaho claim, the purchase-and-damages requirement is usually the first defense to test.
What calls does the Idaho Telephone Solicitation Act cover?
Unsolicited sales calls to purchasers, and prize or discount offers that invite a return call where the sale closes.
Section 48-1002 defines a “Telephone solicitation” as “Any unsolicited telephone call to a purchaser for the purpose of asking, inducing, inviting, requesting, or encouraging the purchaser to purchase or invest in goods or services during the course of a telephone call.” It also covers a mailer or ad offering a free prize or below-regular price that invites a return call intended to close a sale.
The definition’s phrase “during the course of a telephone call” matters. A call that only schedules a later appointment, with no intent to close on the phone, is a weak fit for the first part of the definition.
How does Idaho’s no-call list work?
Idaho uses the national Do Not Call Registry as its list, with a three-month grace period after registration.
Under § 48-1003A, the national registry may serve as Idaho’s no telephone solicitation contact list. A solicitor violates the statute by calling a listed Idaho resident’s number “when that telephone number has been on such list for at least three (3) months prior to the date the telephone solicitation is made.” That’s a longer grace period than the federal 31-day scrub safe harbor allows.
The no-call rule doesn’t apply to calls to business numbers, or to calls within an established business relationship when the subscriber hasn’t asked the business to stop. The relationship must rest on an application, purchase, ongoing contract, or transaction that “Currently exists or has existed within the immediately preceding eighteen (18) months.” Unlike the federal rule, an inquiry alone doesn’t create one.
Who has to register?
Telephone solicitors conducting business in Idaho, ten days before they start, unless an exemption applies.
Section 48-1004 requires solicitors to “Register with the attorney general at least ten (10) days prior to conducting business in Idaho,” renew yearly, appoint the Attorney General to receive service, and send written confirmation with a three-day cancellation notice unless the purchaser has an unqualified right to a full refund.
The exemptions in § 48-1005 are wide. They cover isolated transactions, sellers whose prior year’s phone sales were under 60 percent of total sales, calls to prior purchasers, calls that only set up a later face-to-face sales presentation, and businesses licensed by a federal or Idaho agency with power to revoke the license. Most established companies qualify for at least one.
What does a violation cost?
State civil penalties of up to $5,000 per no-call violation, Consumer Protection Act remedies for injured purchasers, and voidable sales.
Section 48-1003A(3) sets a court-imposed civil penalty “for the first violation, not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500); for the second violation, not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500); for the third and subsequent violations, not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation.” Violations of the chapter are also unfair and deceptive acts under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, which the Attorney General enforces.
Under § 48-1007, if a solicitor violates any applicable provision, “any contract of sale or purchase is null and void and unenforceable.” For a company that actually made sales, that’s the bigger risk. People who only received calls usually turn to the federal TCPA, where damages are $500 per violation, up to $1,500 if willful or knowing.
What other practices are unlawful?
Harassment, refusing to hang up, misrepresentations, misleading caller ID, and junk faxes.
Section 48-1003 makes it unlawful to “Refuse to hang up and free the purchaser’s line immediately once requested to do so,” to misrepresent price, quality, or availability, or to claim government endorsement or a registration the solicitor doesn’t have. It also bars using any method “to block or mislead the intended recipient of the call as to the identity of the solicitor” on caller ID, and sending an unsolicited fax advertisement.
| Idaho rule | Section | Exposure | Defense to develop |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calls to no-call numbers listed 3 months | 48-1003A | Civil penalty up to $500, $2,500, then $5,000 | Business number; relationship within 18 months |
| Registration and cancellation notice | 48-1004 | Void sale; Consumer Protection Act remedies | Exemption under 48-1005 |
| Refusing to hang up; misrepresentation | 48-1003(1)(b), (c) | Same | Recordings and scripts |
| Misleading caller ID | 48-1003(1)(f) | Same | Caller ID settings |
| Private claim | 48-1007 | Purchaser’s damages | No purchase; no damages |
Steps to take when an Idaho claim arrives
- Issue a litigation hold for call recordings, dialer records, and sales records tied to the Idaho numbers.
- Retrieve stop requests and internal do-not-call entries, with dates.
- Retrieve Registry scrub records and dates showing when each number was listed.
- Gather registration filings or the exemption analysis, confirmation letters, scripts, and vendor contracts.
- Have a lawyer review the claim before responding, contacting the purchaser, or offering a refund.
The sales records in step 1 decide whether an Idaho plaintiff has a private claim at all. More on defending Do Not Call claims is available, and a recent post covers how the TCPA interacts with state telemarketing laws.
Questions about the Idaho Telephone Solicitation Act
Can someone who didn’t buy anything sue under the Idaho act?
The statute’s private remedy in § 48-1007 is limited to a person who purchases goods or services through a telephone solicitation “and thereby suffers damages.” A recipient who bought nothing has a weak state-law claim, although federal TCPA claims don’t require a purchase.
Are calls to business lines covered by Idaho’s no-call rule?
No. Section 48-1003A(4) says the no-call section doesn’t apply to solicitations “To a telephone subscriber’s commercial or business telephone number.” Calls to a business owner’s personal cell phone may still raise federal questions.
Does a licensed business need to register?
Usually not. The exemptions include a person whose business is licensed by a federal or Idaho agency, other than the Secretary of State, that can revoke the license. The exemption is from registration and its related duties, not from the no-call rule or the unlawful-practices list.
Can a customer waive Idaho rights in a contract?
No. A contract or written confirmation that “purports to waive any of the purchaser’s rights under this chapter” is void under § 48-1007(4). Arbitration terms raise separate questions, but a waiver clause won’t defeat the statute.
Defending Idaho telephone solicitation claims
If your company has received an Idaho complaint, an Attorney General inquiry, or a lawsuit over sales calls, the purchase requirement and the exemptions usually set the scope of 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
Idaho Code § 48-1002, § 48-1003, § 48-1003A, § 48-1004, § 48-1005, § 48-1007; 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 26, 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.