Since 2023, Arizona law has barred sellers from sending a telephone solicitation call or text message to a number on the national Do Not Call Registry. The rule sits at A.R.S. § 44-1282, and a violation is an unlawful practice under the state’s Consumer Fraud Act, with civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation in an attorney general action. The statute names no private damages remedy, and that gap is where most of a business’s defense to an Arizona claim begins.
What does Arizona’s Do Not Call statute prohibit?
Solicitation calls and texts to Registry numbers. Section 44-1282(A) provides that a seller or solicitor “shall not initiate an outbound telephone solicitation call or text message to any telephone number if the telephone number is entered in the national do-not-call registry.” The words “or text message” came from House Bill 2498, which the governor approved on April 12, 2023.
The same subsection carves out “any telephone solicitation that would be authorized or permitted by federal law or regulation relating to a telephone solicitation.” That’s a useful sentence for a defendant. A text that the federal Do Not Call rules permit, because the business had an established business relationship with the recipient or the recipient’s written permission, should fall inside that exception. The statute also lists three narrow exceptions for licensed real estate professionals, covering past or present employment agreements with the consumer, personal referrals, and express requests.
Who enforces it, and what are the penalties?
The attorney general. Subsection B states that “A violation of this section is an unlawful practice pursuant to section 44-1522,” and that “a civil penalty under section 44-1531 for a violation of this section shall not exceed $1,000 per violation.” Penalties collected go to the state general fund.
Arizona’s broader telephone solicitation article adds more conduct rules. Section 44-1278(B) makes it an unlawful practice to block caller ID, to call a person who “has previously stated a desire not to receive outbound telephone calls” from the seller, or to make prerecorded calls to a residential line without “the prior express consent of the called party.” It also bars a seller from intentionally making “any unsolicited telephone sales call to any mobile or telephone paging device.”
That last rule sounds broad, but its reach depends on a definition. The article defines a telephone solicitation in § 44-1271 as “any voice communication from a live operator, announcing device or otherwise that offers merchandise for sale or rent.” Section 44-1282 names text messages expressly, and § 44-1278 doesn’t. A business facing a § 44-1278 claim over texts has a strong textual argument that the section reaches only voice calls.
Can a consumer sue privately under Arizona’s law?
The statute doesn’t say so, and the private route is harder than plaintiffs suggest. Arizona courts allow private suits under the Consumer Fraud Act, though the Act itself grants none expressly. In Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 110 Ariz. 573 (1974), the Arizona Supreme Court acknowledged that “The Consumer Fraud Act does not contain express language granting a private right of action,” and then held that a private right of action exists anyway.
The elements of that private claim are a poor fit for an unwanted text. The Arizona Supreme Court restated them in Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 239 Ariz. 19 (2016): “to succeed on a claim of consumer fraud, a plaintiff must show (1) a false promise or misrepresentation made in connection with the sale or advertisement of “merchandise,” and (2) consequent and proximate injury resulting from the misrepresentation.”
A Registry text usually contains no misrepresentation, and the recipient rarely relies on it and loses money because of it. Plaintiffs’ lawyers will argue that the statutory unlawful-practice designation in § 44-1282 should carry the private remedy with it whatever the elements in Watts say. No Arizona appellate decision has resolved that question, and a defendant should press the Watts elements from the first motion.
| Claim | Statute | Who can bring it | Exposure | Defenses that answer it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texts or calls to Registry numbers | A.R.S. § 44-1282 | Attorney general | Civil penalty up to $1,000 per violation | Federal-permission exception, consent, established business relationship |
| Calls after a do-not-call request | A.R.S. § 44-1278(B)(2) | Attorney general | Consumer Fraud Act remedies | Written procedures, training, ten-year list, and an error |
| Prerecorded calls to a residence | A.R.S. § 44-1278(B)(4) | Attorney general | Consumer Fraud Act remedies | Prior express consent or emergency purpose |
| Private Consumer Fraud Act claim | A.R.S. § 44-1522 | Consumer, under Sellinger | Actual damages, if proven | No misrepresentation, no injury from reliance |
| Federal Do Not Call claim | 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) | Consumer | Up to $500 per violation, more if willful or knowing | Consent, business relationship, fewer than two calls in 12 months |
Does the do-not-call safe harbor help?
For § 44-1278 claims, yes. The statute provides that a seller isn’t liable for a call to someone who asked not to be called if the seller “has established and implemented written procedures,” trained its staff on them, keeps a no-call list “and keeps all do not call requests for at least ten years,” and the call “is the result of an error.” All four conditions must be met.
The ten-year retention period is the condition companies miss. Many texting platforms purge opt-out data after a few years, and a business that switched vendors may have lost the older suppression list. Ask the vendor how long it keeps opt-out records before a claim arrives, not after.
Are businesses exempt from Arizona’s telemarketing rules?
Many are exempt from registration, but not from the Do Not Call rules. Section 44-1273 exempts banks, insurers, licensed professionals, catalog sellers, and sellers contacting previous customers, among others, from most of the article. Both groups of exemptions keep the Do Not Call section in force. The second group, which includes banks and sellers calling previous customers, is exempt “except for sections 44-1278 and 44-1282.”
The registration requirement in § 44-1272 is a separate issue. A seller that isn’t exempt must file a registration statement with the Arizona Secretary of State before soliciting consumers in the state, an approach similar to California’s rules for telephonic sellers. The earlier post on California’s telephonic seller registration and bond covers that approach.
Arizona’s statute puts the burden on the business. Subsection D provides that “In any civil proceeding alleging a violation of this article, the burden of proving an exemption or an exception from a definition is on the person claiming the exemption or exception.” A business that relies on the previous-customer exemption needs records showing the earlier sale, made under the same name it used in the call.
What to gather when an Arizona text claim arrives
- Put a litigation hold on the text and call logs for the claimant’s number, the platform data showing how each message was sent, and the consent or purchase record behind the number.
- Export the opt-out and internal do-not-call history for the number, with dates, and note the oldest entry in the suppression list.
- Pull the National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and the Registry version dates used for each campaign.
- Collect the vendor and lead-source contracts, the message templates, and any recorded or AI-voice call files.
- Have a lawyer review the file before answering the demand or making any offer to the claimant.
Most demand letters that cite Arizona law also plead a federal claim. The state statute gives the plaintiff an unlawful-practice label, and the federal statute gives the plaintiff a damages number. Counsel defending TCPA and state telemarketing claims will usually focus on the federal exposure first. The earlier posts on state mini-TCPA laws for texting and on TCPA preemption of state telemarketing laws cover how the two layers interact.
Questions about Arizona’s telephone solicitation law
Does Arizona have its own do-not-call list?
No. Section 44-1282 relies on the national Do Not Call Registry run by the Federal Trade Commission. A business that scrubs its lists against the national Registry, and keeps the scrub records, has done the scrubbing Arizona requires. That’s a lighter lift than in Texas or Florida, which the earlier post on state do-not-call registries covers.
Does the law apply to a business outside Arizona?
It can. The article’s definition of telephone solicitation covers communications “to or from a person located in this state,” so a California company texting an Arizona resident is within its reach. The practical question is enforcement, which rests with the Arizona attorney general for the Do Not Call section.
Do informational texts count?
Usually not. Section 44-1282 reaches telephone solicitations, and the article ties that term to offers of merchandise for sale or rent. A shipping notice or appointment reminder that doesn’t offer anything for sale shouldn’t qualify, though a reminder that adds a promotion can change that.
Can a business rely on the federal consent rules in Arizona?
Largely, yes. The exception in § 44-1282(A) for solicitations “authorized or permitted by federal law or regulation” lets a business use the federal Do Not Call rules as its defense under the Arizona statute too. Consent records that satisfy the federal rule do double duty.
Defending Arizona telemarketing and text claims
If your company is accused of texting Arizona numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, the scrub records and the consent behind each number usually decide both the state and federal claims. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving texts to Arizona numbers on the Do Not Call Registry. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statutes are the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and Arizona’s telephone solicitation article, including A.R.S. § 44-1271, § 44-1273, § 44-1278, and § 44-1282, with the Consumer Fraud Act’s § 44-1522. The 2023 amendment is House Bill 2498, Laws 2023, Chapter 41.
The decisions discussed are Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 110 Ariz. 573 (1974), and Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 239 Ariz. 19 (2016).
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of July 18, 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.