Minnesota’s robocall law is stricter than the federal TCPA in two places. A company can’t use a device that plays a prerecorded or synthesized voice message unless the subscriber agreed or a live operator gets consent first, and sales calls can’t start before 9:00 a.m. But Minnesota has no do-not-call list of its own, and its private claim requires proof that the suit benefits the public. A company facing one of these claims often has more defenses than the demand letter suggests.
What does Minnesota’s robocall law prohibit?
It bars prerecorded and synthesized voice messages that the person called didn’t agree to. Under Minn. Stat. § 325E.27(a), “A caller shall not use or connect to a telephone line an automatic dialing-announcing device unless: (1) the subscriber has knowingly or voluntarily requested, consented to, permitted, or authorized receipt of the message; or (2) the message is immediately preceded by a live operator who obtains the subscriber’s consent before the message is delivered.”
The definitions decide most cases. Under § 325E.26, an automatic dialing-announcing device is “a device that selects and dials telephone numbers and that, working alone or in conjunction with other equipment, disseminates a prerecorded or synthesized voice message to the telephone number called.” A “message” is “any call, regardless of its content,” so the rule isn’t limited to sales calls. Political and survey robocalls fall inside it too.
The Eighth Circuit has read the statute as a consent rule. In Gresham v. Swanson, 866 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2017), the court wrote that “The statute as a whole disfavors robocalls to strangers, but it allows them with consent.” It affirmed because the challenger was “unlikely to succeed on his First Amendment claim.”
Which robocalls does Minnesota exempt?
Existing customers are the big one. Under § 325E.27(b), the consent rule and the calling-hours rule don’t apply to “messages to subscribers with whom the caller has a current business or personal relationship.” The same paragraph exempts messages from school districts to students, parents, or employees and messages telling employees about work schedules. A separate sentence exempts a narrow class of charity calls seeking clothing donations for disabled veterans.
The word “current” is where these disputes start. Federal rules measure an established business relationship in months. Minnesota’s exemption has no clock, but a customer who stopped buying two years ago may not be a current one. Companies running prerecorded campaigns to Minnesota numbers should keep the last transaction date for each number in the calling file, so the exemption can be proved number by number.
Does the law cover AI-voice calls and text messages?
AI-voice calls, yes. Texts, probably not. The device definition in § 325E.26 reaches a “prerecorded or synthesized voice message,” and an AI-generated voice is a synthesized voice. A company using a voice agent to place outbound calls to Minnesota numbers should treat each call as a robocall under state law and get consent or a live operator first.
A plain text message carries no voice at all, so the statute’s words point away from it. That doesn’t make Minnesota texting risk-free. Text exposure for Minnesota numbers mostly comes from federal law, covered in the overview of state mini-TCPA laws for texting.
The device also has to do the dialing. In Smith v. Securus Technologies, Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d 976 (D. Minn. 2015), the court held that “under both federal and state law, in order for Defendant to be liable, it must have affirmatively caused the call to exist by selecting and dialing the recipients’ telephone numbers.” An inmate had dialed the numbers there, so the platform that played the recorded prompts wasn’t the caller. Who dialed is worth pinning down early in any Minnesota robocall case. That’s doubly true when a platform or a vendor placed the calls.
What are Minnesota’s calling hours?
Nine to nine. Under § 325E.30, “A caller shall not use an automatic dialing-announcing device nor make any commercial telephone solicitation before 9:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m.” Federal rules in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) allow telephone solicitations from 8 a.m., so a dialer set to the federal window breaks Minnesota law for a full hour every morning.
The rule covers two kinds of calls. Every robocall is covered, whatever its content. A live call is covered only if it’s a “commercial telephone solicitation,” which § 325E.26 defines as an unsolicited sales call “to a residential subscriber when the person initiating the call has not had a prior business or personal relationship with the subscriber.” The statute doesn’t say whose clock controls. The safer practice is the called party’s local time, which is what the federal rule uses.
This is the easiest Minnesota violation to commit and the easiest to prevent. A state-specific start time in the dialer settings, with a saved record of the setting, answers most hours claims before they start.
Two operating rules round out the statute. Under § 325E.28, the device must “disconnect within ten seconds after termination of the telephone call by the subscriber.” And under § 325E.29, a live operator who introduces a recorded message must disclose, “at the outset of the message,” the business’s name, the purpose of the message, what’s being promoted, and whether the message seeks payment.
Does Minnesota have its own do-not-call list?
Not anymore. Minnesota’s do-not-call statute, sections 325E.311 to 325E.316, expired at the end of 2012. The 2009 session law states, “Sections 325E.311 to 325E.316 expire December 31, 2012.” That language is in 2009 Minn. Laws ch. 178, art. 1, § 61.
So a Minnesota number’s do-not-call protection comes from the National Do Not Call Registry and federal law. Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), a person who received more than one solicitation in twelve months in violation of the federal 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. Minnesota adds a disclosure rule for live sales calls. Under § 325G.13, a seller making a telephone solicitation must state the seller’s name, the business, and what’s being sold “before asking any questions or making any statements except an initial greeting.”
What can a person recover under Minnesota’s robocall law?
Actual damages and attorney fees, not a set amount per call. Under § 325E.31(a), a person found to have violated sections 325E.27 to 325E.30 “is subject to the penalties and remedies, including a private right of action to recover damages, as provided in section 8.31.” Section 8.31, subdivision 3a, lets “any person injured by a violation” sue and “recover damages, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney’s fees.”
That remedy has a limit that matters. The Minnesota Supreme Court held in Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000), that section 8.31 claims are limited to plaintiffs who “demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public.” The court reaffirmed the rule in Findling v. Group Health Plan, Inc. in 2023, noting that the plaintiffs “will ultimately have to prove a public benefit to obtain the relief they seek under section 8.31, subdivision 3a.”
For a defendant, the public-benefit element is often the best early argument. A consumer suing over a few robocalls to a personal phone is seeking a private recovery. As Findling describes Ly, the statute “does not allow claims based on violations of law that only impact a single individual.” A class action seeking an injunction against an ongoing campaign is harder to knock out on this ground, so the argument is strongest against individual suits.
The state’s exposure is larger. Under § 325E.31(b), the attorney general may recover a civil penalty, and the amount “must not exceed $50,000.”
| Claim | Rule | Exposure | Defenses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Robocall without consent or a live operator | Minn. Stat. § 325E.27(a) | Actual damages plus costs and attorney fees under § 8.31, on proof of injury and public benefit | Consent, current business relationship, a human dialed, no public benefit, no injury |
| Robocall or sales call before 9 a.m. or after 9 p.m. | § 325E.30 | Same as above | Call records in local time, current business relationship, not a commercial solicitation |
| Device fails to disconnect, or live operator omits disclosures | §§ 325E.28, 325E.29 | Same as above | Platform settings, plus scripts and call recordings |
| Live sales call without opening disclosures | § 325G.13 | Penalties and remedies under § 8.31 | Buyer knew the seller, buyer initiated the contact, scripts |
| Attorney general enforcement | § 325E.31(b) | Civil penalty up to $50,000 | Exemptions, consent records, compliance procedures |
| Federal prerecorded-voice claim | 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) | Up to $500, or up to $1,500 if willful or knowing | Prior express consent, prior express written consent for telemarketing |
How does Minnesota’s law fit with the federal TCPA?
It sits beside the federal rules, and the federal claim usually carries more money. Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), a person may recover actual loss or “$500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater,” and a court may triple the award if the violation was willful or knowing.
The consent standards differ. Minnesota accepts a subscriber who has “knowingly or voluntarily requested, consented to, permitted, or authorized receipt of the message” under § 325E.27(a). The federal rule for prerecorded telemarketing to a residential line, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3), requires “the prior express written consent of the called party.” A consent record built to the federal written-consent standard will generally satisfy Minnesota too. The reverse isn’t true.
Minnesota’s live-operator option has no federal counterpart for telemarketing. A call that opens with a live person who gets consent before playing a recording can comply with § 325E.27 and still be a prerecorded-voice call under federal law. The guide to ringless voicemail and the TCPA covers a related federal question. A company’s Minnesota robocall claim defense usually depends on the same consent and dialing records that answer the federal claim.
What to gather when a Minnesota robocall claim arrives
- Put a litigation hold on the call logs, dialer and voice-platform data, and consent records for every Minnesota number in the claim.
- Pull any request from the claimant to stop calling, with the date it came in and the date it was honored.
- Collect the National Do Not Call Registry downloads used for the campaign, with their version dates, and the dialer’s calling-window settings for Minnesota.
- Gather the vendor contracts, call scripts, and every prerecorded or AI-voice message file used in the campaign.
- Have a lawyer review the claim before anyone responds to a demand letter, contacts the claimant, or offers to settle.
Questions about Minnesota’s robocall law
Does Minnesota’s robocall law cover cell phones?
The statute doesn’t limit it to landlines. Section 325E.26 defines a subscriber as “a person who has subscribed to telephone service from a telephone company,” with no exception for wireless service. The calling-hours rule for live sales calls is narrower, because a commercial telephone solicitation is defined as a call to a residential subscriber. Whether a particular cell phone counts as residential can become a fact question, and it’s worth testing early.
Can a company send prerecorded messages to its own Minnesota customers?
Generally yes, under state law. Section 325E.27(b) exempts messages to subscribers with whom the caller has a current business or personal relationship. Federal law is stricter. A prerecorded telemarketing call to a cell phone or residential line still needs prior express written consent under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a), whatever the customer relationship.
Does the law apply to companies outside Minnesota?
Yes. Section 325E.26 defines a caller as any person or entity “who attempts to contact, or who contacts, a subscriber in this state by using a telephone or a telephone line.” Where the caller sits doesn’t matter. A national campaign that reaches Minnesota numbers needs Minnesota’s consent rule and 9 a.m. start time built into its settings.
When a Minnesota robocall claim lands on your desk
If your company is accused of placing prerecorded or AI-voice calls to Minnesota numbers without consent, the consent records and the dialing logs usually decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving prerecorded and AI-voice calls. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
Minnesota’s robocall statute is Minn. Stat. § 325E.26, § 325E.27, § 325E.28, § 325E.29, § 325E.30, and § 325E.31. The remedies statute is § 8.31, and the disclosure rule is § 325G.13. The expiration of the state do-not-call law is in 2009 Minn. Laws ch. 178. The cases are Gresham v. Swanson, 866 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2017), Smith v. Securus Technologies, Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d 976 (D. Minn. 2015), Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000), and Findling v. Group Health Plan, Inc. (Minn. 2023). 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 30, 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.