Missouri No-Call Law: Telemarketing Rules for Calls and Texts

Up to $5,000. That’s what Missouri’s no-call law allows for each knowing violation, ten times the federal TCPA’s base award. The claim needs more than one solicitation in twelve months from the same seller to a number on the state list, and the statute names text messages expressly. But the plaintiff has to prove a knowing violation, and a company with reasonable, carefully run procedures to prevent these calls has a complete defense.

What does Missouri’s no-call law prohibit?

It bars telephone solicitations to Missouri residential subscribers who’ve joined the state’s no-call list. Under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.1098, “No person or entity shall make or cause to be made any telephone solicitation to any residential subscriber in this state” who has given notice to the attorney general of an objection to receiving telephone solicitations.

Two definitions in § 407.1095 set the reach. A residential subscriber is a person who, “for primarily personal and familial use,” has subscribed to “residential telephone service, wireless service or similar service,” along with the people living with that person. Cell phones are covered. And the phrase “make or cause to be made” in § 407.1098 reaches the company whose products are being sold, not just the vendor that dials.

The list itself is run by the attorney general. Under § 407.1101, the list “is not intended to include any telephone number primarily used for business or commercial purposes.” The same section directs the attorney general to fold the Missouri part of a national do-not-call database into the state list. So a Missouri number can be off-limits under state law because it was registered federally, and a clean federal scrub alone isn’t the safe course. Companies calling Missouri should scrub against both lists, with the version dates saved.

Does Missouri’s no-call law cover text messages?

Yes, by its own words. Under § 407.1095(3), a telephone solicitation is “any voice, facsimile, short messaging service (SMS), or multimedia messaging service (MMS)” sent to encourage the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services.

That’s a real difference from federal law. Federal courts still disagree over whether a text is a “telephone call” for a federal Do Not Call claim. Missouri’s statute doesn’t leave room for that argument. A marketing text to a Missouri number on the no-call list is a telephone solicitation under state law, whatever a federal court decides about the TCPA.

Which calls and texts fall outside the no-call law?

Five kinds of communications aren’t telephone solicitations at all. Under § 407.1095(3), the definition excludes communications made with the subscriber’s “prior express invitation or permission.” It also excludes communications from a company with which the subscriber “has had a business contact within the past one hundred eighty days or a current business or personal relationship.”

The other three exclusions are narrower. Under the same § 407.1095(3), fundraising by a 501(c)(3) charity is outside the law when “a bona fide member” of the organization makes the voice communication. So are communications from a business regulated by a federal agency, to the extent it must hold a license, permit, or certificate to sell what it’s offering and must keep its own no-call list by law or rule. The last exclusion covers a natural person responding to a referral or working from a primary residence, and a Missouri-licensed professional setting an appointment within the state or a contiguous county.

The business-contact window is the one to calendar. A business contact within 180 days is enough, which is longer than the federal three-month window for an inquiry and shorter than the federal 18-month window for a purchase under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(5). A “current business or personal relationship” under § 407.1095(3) has no clock at all. A lead’s last contact date belongs in the calling file, because the exemption can turn on a single day.

What does Missouri’s telemarketing law require on every call?

A separate statute, the Missouri telemarketing law at §§ 407.1070 to 407.1085, sets conduct rules for telemarketing whether or not the number is on the no-call list. It defines telemarketing as a campaign to induce a purchase or lease “by use of one or more telephones” that “involves more than one telephone call,” under § 407.1070(13).

The disclosure duties come first. Under § 407.1073, a telemarketer must disclose promptly, meaning at the start of the call, “That the purpose of the telephone call is to make a sale,” the telemarketer’s name and the seller’s, and the nature of what’s being sold. A recorded or computer-generated voice must say so “promptly at the beginning of the telephone call.” That rule reaches AI-voice calls as well as older prerecorded messages.

Section 407.1076 then lists the unlawful practices. Four come up most often in calling disputes. Subdivision (3) bars calling “repeatedly or continuously in a manner a reasonable consumer would deem to be annoying, abusive or harassing.” Subdivision (4) bars knowingly and willfully calling a consumer who “has stated previously that he or she does not wish to receive solicitation calls by or on behalf of the seller.” Subdivision (5) bars telemarketing to a residence “at any time other than between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. local time at the called consumer’s location.” And subdivision (11) bars knowingly blocking or circumventing a consumer’s caller ID.

Subdivision (10) reaches companies that “knowingly provide assistance or support” to a telemarketer while knowing or consciously avoiding knowing that the telemarketer is breaking the law. A seller that keeps a dialing vendor after complaints about after-hours calls is the business this provision is written for.

The telemarketing law also has exemptions of its own, and they’re broader in one way. Under § 407.1085, the law doesn’t apply to calls or messages “To any consumer with whom the seller has an established business relationship.” The definition in § 407.1070(4) sets no time limit on that relationship. It lasts until either side ends it, so an old customer may be outside the telemarketing law and still inside the no-call law’s 180-day test.

What can a person recover in Missouri?

Under the no-call law, the greater of actual loss or up to $5,000 for each knowing violation. Section 407.1107(3) lets a person who “has received more than one telephone solicitation within any twelve-month period by or on behalf of the same person or entity” in violation of § 407.1098 or § 407.1104 sue for an injunction, for damages, or both. Damages are “actual monetary loss from such knowing violation” or “up to five thousand dollars in damages for each such knowing violation, whichever is greater.”

Three features of that remedy matter to a defendant. The claim needs at least two solicitations in twelve months from the same company, and a single text isn’t enough. The violation has to be knowing, and $5,000 is a ceiling, not a set award. And § 407.1107 doesn’t provide for attorney fees, unlike Missouri’s telemarketing law.

The strongest defense is written into the statute. Under § 407.1107(4), “It shall be 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 section 407.1098 or 407.1104.” The defense rests on records: written scrub procedures, training, dated list downloads, and proof the procedures were followed. A company that can’t produce them has a policy, not a defense.

The telemarketing law works differently. Under § 407.1082, a violation is an unlawful practice under the Merchandising Practices Act, and “any consumer that suffers a loss or harm as a result of any unlawful telemarketing act or practice pursuant to section 407.1076 may recover actual and punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs and any other remedies provided by law.” There’s no fixed per-call amount, so the claimant has to show a loss or harm. The fee provision is what gives these claims settlement value. Willful and knowing violations of the calling-hours and opt-out rules are also class A misdemeanors under § 407.1082(2).

The state has its own tools. Under § 407.1107(1), the attorney general may seek an injunction and “a civil penalty up to a maximum of five thousand dollars for each knowing violation,” and may issue investigative demands and subpoenas. In State ex rel. Koster v. Charter Communications, Inc., 461 S.W.3d 851 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015), the Missouri Court of Appeals held that the attorney general’s civil investigative demands to a phone carrier “are administrative subpoenas” under the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The court ordered the carrier to produce basic subscriber information about customers suspected of violating “Missouri’s no-call and telemarketing laws.” A caller that hides behind a carrier account shouldn’t expect the account to stay anonymous.

How does Missouri’s law fit with the federal TCPA?

It stacks on top of it, and the state exposure is larger per call. Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), a person who has received more than one call within twelve months in violation of the federal Do Not Call rules may sue for up to $500 per violation, and a court may increase the award up to $1,500 if the violation was willful or knowing. The federal rules in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) also bar solicitations before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. at the called party’s location, the same window Missouri uses.

The federal statute has a defense that resembles Missouri’s. Section 227(c)(5) lets a defendant show that it “has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations.” One compliance program, documented once, can support both defenses. The federal internal do-not-call policy requirements are a sensible base for it, and the overview of state mini-TCPA laws compares Missouri with other states. A company’s Missouri no-call claim defense usually starts with those same compliance records.

Records to pull when a Missouri no-call claim arrives

1. Put a litigation hold on the call and text logs, dialer and texting platform data, and consent records for every Missouri number in the claim.
2. Pull the internal do-not-call list and any stop request from the claimant, with the date it was received and the date it was honored.
3. Collect the Missouri no-call list and national registry downloads used for the campaign, with their version dates, and the written scrub procedures.
4. Gather the vendor and lead-source contracts, the call scripts, and any recorded or AI-voice message files.
5. Have a lawyer review the claim before anyone answers a demand letter, contacts the claimant, or offers money to settle.

Questions about Missouri’s no-call law

Are business phone numbers on Missouri’s no-call list?

Generally not. Section 407.1101 says the list isn’t intended to include numbers used primarily for business or commercial purposes, and the no-call law protects a “residential subscriber,” defined by personal and family use. A cell phone used mainly for personal calls is covered. A mixed-use phone can produce a fact dispute, so the claimant’s own use of the number is worth testing early.

Does a single text violate Missouri’s no-call law?

A single text can be a violation, but it can’t support a private lawsuit on its own. Section 407.1107(3) requires more than one telephone solicitation within twelve months from or for the same company. The attorney general’s enforcement power isn’t tied to that threshold, so a single text to a listed number still carries regulatory risk.

Can an out-of-state company be sued in Missouri over calls?

Yes. Section 407.1107(6) says a Missouri court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident in a no-call action “in the manner otherwise provided by law.” Calls or texts aimed at Missouri numbers are the usual basis. An out-of-state seller should also check whether its vendors’ calls to Missouri are attributed to it under the “on behalf of” language in § 407.1107(3).

If your company is accused of calling Missouri numbers

If your company is accused of texting or calling Missouri residents on the state no-call list, the scrub records and the written compliance procedures usually decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving calls to numbers on state no-call lists. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

The no-call law is in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.1095, § 407.1098, § 407.1101, § 407.1104, and § 407.1107. The telemarketing law is in § 407.1070, § 407.1073, § 407.1076, § 407.1082, and § 407.1085. The investigative-demand decision is State ex rel. Koster v. Charter Communications, Inc., 461 S.W.3d 851 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). The federal law is 47 U.S.C. § 227 and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of June 29, 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.