Alaska’s statute on unwanted telephone solicitations is short and blunt. Under AS 45.50.475, a person violates the state’s consumer protection law if it “originates a telephone call using an automated or recorded message as a telephonic advertisement or a telephone solicitation.” The text contains no consent exception for that ban. Do Not Call and opt-out violations are covered too. The private remedy requires an ascertainable loss, and the statute gives employers a good-faith procedures defense.
What does Alaska’s statute prohibit?
Solicitations to Registry numbers, solicitations after an opt-out, and recorded-message ads or solicitations.
AS 45.50.475(a) makes it a violation to engage “in the telephone solicitation of a customer whose telephone number has been registered with the national do not call registry for the minimum amount of time required” before the call, or of a customer who “has previously communicated to the telephone solicitor, or to the business enterprise or charitable organization for which the person is calling, the customer’s desire not to receive telephone solicitations to that number.” The fourth paragraph covers recorded messages.
Each of those is treated as a violation of the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, through the cross-reference to AS 45.50.471(b)(41).
What counts as a telephone solicitation?
A sales or donation call to a home or a cell phone, with five exclusions.
The definitions in subsection (g) describe a telephone solicitation as “the solicitation by a person by telephone of a customer at the residence of the customer or on a customer’s cellular or mobile telephone for the purpose of encouraging the customer to purchase property, goods, or services, or make a donation.”
The exclusions are where most defenses start. They cover calls responding to the customer’s own request or inquiry, certain charitable calls, calls “limited to soliciting the expression of ideas, opinions, or votes,” “business-to-business calls,” and calls to people who bought from the seller “within the last 18 months,” unless they’ve asked that solicitations stop. A written stop request is presumed received ten days after it was mailed.
Is every recorded-message call illegal in Alaska?
Recorded solicitations and ads are prohibited. Informational recorded calls that don’t advertise or solicit fall outside the ban.
The statute’s text reaches a call “using an automated or recorded message as a telephonic advertisement or a telephone solicitation,” per AS 45.50.475(a)(4). Unlike federal law, it doesn’t carve out calls made with prior express written consent. A recorded or AI-voice marketing message to Alaska customers is a risk even with federal-standard consent, and the safer course is to keep Alaska numbers out of prerecorded and artificial-voice sales campaigns altogether.
Two limits help. The recorded-message ban is tied to advertising or solicitation, so appointment reminders, fraud alerts, and account notices without a sales pitch are a different question. And the 18-month customer exclusion applies to the definition of telephone solicitation, which a defendant can argue narrows the reach of paragraph (a)(4) as well.
Who can sue, and for how much?
A person who suffered an ascertainable loss, for three times actual damages or $500 per unlawful act, whichever is greater.
AS 45.50.531(a) provides that “A person who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of another person’s act or practice declared unlawful by AS 45.50.471 may bring a civil action to recover for each unlawful act or practice three times the actual damages or $500, whichever is greater.” The plaintiff must mail the complaint to the Attorney General.
The ascertainable loss requirement is the main battleground. A recipient who lost no money or property from an unwanted call faces a threshold problem under the state statute, which is why Alaska recipients often plead the federal TCPA instead, at $500 per violation, up to $1,500 if willful or knowing.
What defenses does the statute provide?
Good-faith error defenses for both employers and individual callers.
Under AS 45.50.475(d), a person who employs telephone solicitors isn’t liable for a Do Not Call or opt-out violation if it shows written compliance procedures, training, that the call was “made contrary to the procedures and policies established by the person,” and that it “was made as a result of a good faith error.” Subsection (e) protects an individual caller who “did not intend to make the call in violation of this section and did not recklessly disregard” the policies.
Note what the defense doesn’t cover. It applies to violations of paragraphs (a)(1) to (3), the list and opt-out rules. The recorded-message ban in (a)(4) has no matching safe harbor in the statute.
| Alaska rule | Section | Private exposure | Defense to develop |
|---|---|---|---|
| Solicitation to Registry numbers | 45.50.475(a)(2) | Greater of three times actual damages or $500, with ascertainable loss | Procedures and good-faith error under (d) |
| Solicitation after an opt-out | 45.50.475(a)(3) | Same | Procedures and good-faith error under (d) |
| Recorded or automated message ad or solicitation | 45.50.475(a)(4) | Same | Exclusions in the definition; no sales content |
| Calls to recent customers | 45.50.475(g)(4)(B)(v) | Excluded unless they asked to stop | Purchase records within 18 months |
Steps to take when an Alaska claim arrives
- Preserve call logs, dialer and message platform data, and consent records for the Alaska numbers involved, under a litigation hold.
- Pull opt-out logs and internal do-not-call lists with dates, including mailed stop requests.
- Pull National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and version dates.
- Collect written procedures, training records, recorded and AI-voice message files, and vendor contracts.
- Have a lawyer review the claim before responding, contacting the claimant, or offering anything.
Alaska claims often turn on whether the plaintiff lost anything and whether the call was a solicitation at all. More on defending telemarketing and robocall claims is available, and a recent post covers North Carolina’s solicitation law.
Questions about Alaska telephone solicitation law
Does federal consent make recorded marketing calls legal in Alaska?
Not under the statute’s text. AS 45.50.475(a)(4) bars a call “using an automated or recorded message as a telephonic advertisement or a telephone solicitation” without a consent exception. Calls to people who don’t meet the definition of a solicitation, such as recent customers or people who asked to be called, are the stronger ground.
Does Alaska’s law cover cell phones?
Yes. The definition reaches solicitations to a customer at home “or on a customer’s cellular or mobile telephone.” Whether it reaches text messages isn’t addressed in the text, and plaintiffs will argue that it does.
Are business-to-business calls covered?
No. The definition of telephone solicitation excludes “business-to-business calls.” Federal rules on prerecorded calls and texts to wireless numbers can still apply to calls placed to a business owner’s cell phone.
Can a company avoid liability for a call that slipped through its scrub?
Often, for Do Not Call and opt-out violations, if it proves the written procedures, training, a call contrary to those procedures, and good-faith error under subsection (d). Keeping those records current is the cheapest Alaska defense available.
Defending Alaska telephone solicitation claims
If your company has been sued or received a demand over calls or recorded messages to Alaska numbers, the definition’s exclusions and the ascertainable loss requirement usually frame the defense. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving recorded-message solicitations. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
Alaska Stat. § 45.50.475; Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531; 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 11, 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.