“No telemarketer may make, or cause to be made, a telephonic sales call to a consumer without such consumer’s prior express written consent.” That sentence, added to Connecticut’s statute in 2023, reaches texts and calls to any Connecticut area code, wherever the caller sits. It goes further than the federal rules, which require written consent only for autodialed or prerecorded marketing. The private claim runs through the state’s unfair trade practices act, and a business sued under it often has a strong answer on loss.
What does Connecticut’s telemarketing statute require?
Written consent before most sales calls, plus a set of call-conduct rules. Section 42-288a(l) is the written-consent rule quoted above. It doesn’t depend on whether the number is on any do-not-call list.
The list rules still apply on top of it. Subsection (a) makes the state’s “no sales solicitation calls” listing “identical to the National Do Not Call Registry,” so a number on the federal Registry is on Connecticut’s list too. Subsection (b) treats a violation of the federal Do Not Call rules as a violation of Connecticut law.
The conduct rules are specific. A caller may place sales calls only between “nine o’clock a.m. and eight o’clock p.m.” and must give its identity and the purpose of the call “not later than ten seconds after such telephonic sales call begins,” under subsections (c) and (d). Subsection (e) goes further than most states. It requires the caller, at the start of the call, to “ask the consumer whether such consumer wishes to continue such telephonic sales call, end such telephonic sales call or be removed from such person’s list.” Few scripts written for federal compliance include that question.
Does the Connecticut law cover text messages?
Yes, by its own terms. The definition of “telephonic sales call” in § 42-284(18) covers calls made “by way of a live voice, an a utomated dialing system, a recorded message device, soundboard technology, over-the-top messaging or text or media messaging.” The statute defines “text or media message” separately and includes app-based “over-the-top” messages.
That language closes the argument a texting business can make in states like Georgia, whose statute is written around voice calls. A Connecticut text campaign is inside the statute. The open questions are consent and the exclusions, covered below. The earlier post on state mini-TCPA laws for texting compares Connecticut with the other states that wrote texts into their statutes.
Soundboard calls are covered the same way. The statute defines soundboard technology as letting an agent communicate “by playing a recorded audio message instead of using the individual’s voice,” which matches the FCC’s view covered in the earlier post on soundboard and agent-assisted calls.
How does Connecticut define prior express written consent?
A signed written agreement that names the calling method and the number. Under § 42-284, the agreement must disclose “the means by which the telemarketer will call or contact the consumer” and “the telephone number to which the consumer authorizes the telemarketer to deliver” the messages, and it must bear “the signature of the consumer.”
The method disclosure is the part federal consent forms tend to miss. A form that says the business may contact the consumer at a number doesn’t tell the consumer whether the contact will come by text, prerecorded voice, or soundboard. The statute lists those methods by name, and a consent form that does the same is much easier to defend.
What did the 2023 amendments change?
They broadened the statute’s reach and added the written-consent rule. Public Act 23-98 took effect October 1, 2023, according to the legislature’s Office of Legislative Research summary. The summary states that “the act generally prohibits telemarketers from making a telephonic sales call to a consumer without the consumer’s prior express written consent.”
Reach is the other big change. The statute now says “doing business in this state” includes telephonic sales calls “made to a resident consumer or to a telephone number with a Connecticut area code.” Section 42-288a and § 42-289(c) add rebuttable presumptions that calls to a Connecticut area code took place in the state. A California seller with no Connecticut office can’t assume the statute is someone else’s problem.
The amendments also reach the vendors behind a campaign. Section 42-289(b) bars anyone from giving “assistance or support to the initiator” of a call if the person “knows, or avoids knowing,” that the caller is violating the statute. A lead seller or platform that ignores obvious warning signs is the target of that provision.
Can a consumer sue under the Connecticut statute?
Only through the state’s unfair trade practices act, and that claim has a loss requirement. Section 42-288a(k) provides that a violation “shall be deemed an unfair or deceptive trade practice under subsection (a) of section 42-110b.” The private action under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, § 42-110g(a), belongs to a person who suffers “any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal,” caused by the prohibited practice. CUTPA allows class actions, and a court may award punitive damages.
A federal court applied that requirement to telephone claims. In Lundstedt v. I.C. System, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00824 (JAM) (D. Conn. Sept. 26, 2017), the court dismissed the state claims, writing that “The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act does not apply because plaintiff did not suffer an ascertainable loss of money or property.” The court added that “Because plaintiff has alleged only that he sustained emotional injury from being subject to many debt collection calls, he has not alleged facts that plausibly show that he sustained an ascertainable loss.”
The same ruling noted that beyond the CUTPA link, “the statute does not expressly create a judicially enforceable cause of action,” and it called the idea of a freestanding private claim “the doubtful proposition that § 42-288a creates an implied or private right of action independent of any CUTPA claim.” Lundstedt is one trial-court ruling, and it applied the statute before the 2023 amendments. Its loss analysis is still the defense’s starting point, because the 2023 changes didn’t touch CUTPA’s loss requirement.
The state’s own exposure is larger. Subsection (o) provides that a liable person “shall be fined not more than twenty thousand dollars for each violation,” on top of CUTPA penalties. A Connecticut text claim usually arrives paired with a federal claim under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), which allows up to $500 per violation, and up to three times that if the court finds the violation willful or knowing.
Which calls fall outside the Connecticut statute?
Several kinds, and they’re broader than the federal exemptions. The definition of telephonic sales call in § 42-284(18)(B) excludes calls made “in response to a request or inquiry made by a resident consumer,” including calls about an item bought from the telemarketer in the prior twelve months. It also excludes calls made “primarily in connection with an existing debt or contract, payment or performance of which has not been completed.”
The existing-customer exclusion matters most for ordinary businesses. The statute excludes calls and messages “sent to an existing customer of a telemarketer unless such customer previously informed the telemarketer, orally or in writing, that such customer no longer wishes to receive such calls or messages.” Unlike the federal established business relationship rule, covered in the earlier post on the established business relationship defense, that exclusion has no 18-month limit written into it.
Debt collection is the clearest example. Lundstedt held that “A Connecticut law that regulates telephone solicitation (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-288a) does not apply to debt collection calls.” The current definition keeps that result through the existing-debt exclusion.
| Claim | Statute | Who brings it | Exposure | Defenses that answer it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sales call or text without written consent | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-288a(l), (k) | Consumer through CUTPA, or the state | Actual damages if the consumer proves ascertainable loss, discretionary punitive damages, state fine up to $20,000 per violation | Signed consent naming the method and number, existing customer, consumer request, no ascertainable loss |
| Call to a number on the Do Not Call list | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-288a(a), (b) | Same as above | Same as above | Registry scrub records, exclusions in § 42-284(18)(B) |
| Missing disclosures or the continue question | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-288a(d), (e) | Same as above | Same as above | Recorded scripts, call recordings |
| Helping a violating caller | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-289(b) | Same as above | State fine up to $20,000 per violation | No knowledge, commercially used product or service |
| Federal Do Not Call claim | 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) | Consumer | Up to $500 per violation, up to three times that if willful or knowing | Consent, business relationship within 18 months, safe harbor |
What to gather when a Connecticut telemarketing claim arrives
- Put the call and text logs, platform records, and consent records for the claimant’s number under a litigation hold, and confirm whether each contact was a voice call, a soundboard call, or a text.
- Pull the opt-out and internal do-not-call entries for the number, with dates, from every vendor that contacted it.
- Collect the Registry scrub records and their version dates for each campaign that reached a Connecticut area code.
- Gather the signed consent form, the vendor and lead-source contracts, and the call scripts, including the opening question subsection (e) requires.
- Have a lawyer review the file before the business answers a demand, contacts the claimant, or offers anything to settle.
Step four is where most Connecticut defenses are won or lost. Lawyers defending Connecticut telemarketing claims will check first whether the consent form names the calling method and the number, since that’s what the statute requires. The earlier post on TCPA preemption of state telemarketing laws covers why federal law rarely displaces a state claim like this one.
Questions about Connecticut’s telemarketing law
Does a business outside Connecticut have to follow the statute?
If it calls or texts Connecticut numbers, yes. The definitions treat calls “made to a resident consumer or to a telephone number with a Connecticut area code” as doing business in the state. A Connecticut resident with an out-of-state number is also covered. Scrubbing by area code alone won’t catch every Connecticut consumer.
Does federal TCPA consent satisfy Connecticut?
Often, but not automatically. The federal written-consent definition for prerecorded and autodialed marketing requires a signed agreement and the number. Connecticut adds a disclosure of the calling method, whether text, prerecorded voice, or soundboard. A federal form that doesn’t name the method should be updated before the next Connecticut campaign.
Can a consumer recover statutory damages for each call?
Not under the Connecticut statute. The state claim runs through CUTPA, which pays actual damages to a consumer who proves an ascertainable loss of money or property, with punitive damages at the court’s discretion. The per-violation figures come from the federal TCPA claim that usually travels with it, and from fines the state can seek.
Does the statute apply to calls to existing customers?
Not unless the customer has asked to stop. The definition excludes calls and messages to an existing customer who hasn’t told the business, orally or in writing, that it no longer wants them. A business relying on that exclusion should keep the opt-out record for each customer and honor it across every vendor.
Defending Connecticut telemarketing claims
If your company is facing a claim over calls or texts to Connecticut numbers, the consent form and the proof of the consumer’s loss usually decide whether the state claim survives. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving marketing texts to Connecticut area codes. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The state statutes are Connecticut’s telemarketing chapter, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-284 to 42-289, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g. The 2023 amendments are summarized in the Office of Legislative Research summary of Public Act 23-98. The federal statute is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the federal rule is 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.
The decision discussed is Lundstedt v. I.C. System, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00824 (JAM) (D. Conn. Sept. 26, 2017).
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of July 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.