Missouri’s no-call statute names text messages in its definition of telephone solicitation, so a business can’t argue that texts fall outside it. A consumer on the state list who gets more than one solicitation in 12 months can sue for up to $5,000 per knowing violation, ten times the federal $500 figure. The statute’s defenses are broad, though. A recent customer, a licensed professional setting an appointment, and a company with working compliance procedures all have strong answers to a Missouri no-call claim.
What does the Missouri no-call law prohibit?
Solicitations to people on the state list. Section 407.1098 provides that “No person or entity shall make or cause to be made any telephone solicitation to any residential subscriber in this state” who has told the attorney general that the subscriber objects to receiving them.
The list includes the national Registry. Under section 407.1101, if the FCC sets up a national database, the attorney general “shall include that part of such single national database that relates to Missouri” in the state list. A business that scrubs against the national Registry for Missouri numbers is doing most of what the state expects.
Cell phones are covered. The definition of a residential subscriber reaches anyone who “has subscribed to residential telephone service, wireless service or similar service” for “primarily personal and familial use.”
Does it cover text messages?
Yes, by name. Section 407.1095 defines a telephone solicitation as “any voice, facsimile, short messaging service (SMS), or multimedia messaging service (MMS)” sent to encourage a purchase, rental, or investment.
That closes off the argument many businesses use in other states, where the statute only reaches voice calls. The earlier post on state mini-TCPA laws and texting covers which states took the opposite approach. In Missouri the fight over a text campaign moves to the exemptions and the knowledge requirement.
How much can a consumer recover?
Up to $5,000 per knowing violation, or actual loss if greater. Section 407.1107 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” sue for an injunction, for damages, or both.
The word “knowing” carries real weight. The private damages remedy runs only to a “knowing violation,” and that’s a higher bar than the federal statute sets for basic damages. A business that scrubbed its list and called a number that was added after the scrub has a good argument that any violation wasn’t knowing.
The attorney general has its own remedy. The same section allows “a civil penalty up to a maximum of five thousand dollars for each knowing violation” in a state enforcement action. Subsection 7 makes the remedies “not exclusive,” so a consumer can plead a Missouri claim next to a federal one. The earlier post on TCPA preemption of state telemarketing laws covers why the federal statute rarely displaces the state claim.
What defenses does the statute give a business?
Several, and some are broader than federal law. The definition of telephone solicitation in section 407.1095 excludes messages sent with the subscriber’s “prior express invitation or permission” and messages from a company the subscriber “has had a business contact within the past one hundred eighty days or a current business or personal relationship” with.
Read that second exclusion closely. The 180-day window is shorter than the federal 18-month rule, but a current business relationship has no time limit at all. An active subscriber or account holder fits it whenever the last purchase was. The earlier post on the established business relationship defense covers how to prove a relationship from the business’s records.
The definition also excludes a natural person “responding to a referral, or working from his or her primary residence,” and a licensed professional “setting or attempting to set an appointment” for that profession within Missouri or a neighboring county. That last exclusion matters to insurance agents, real estate agents, and contractors who hold a state license.
Then there’s the compliance defense. Section 407.1107 makes it a defense that the business “has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures” to prevent solicitations that violate the statute. A written policy isn’t enough. The business needs records showing the scrubs ran and the opt-outs were honored.
| Claim | Statute | Exposure | Defenses that answer it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Solicitations to numbers on the Missouri list | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.1098, § 407.1107 | Up to $5,000 per knowing violation, or actual loss if greater, after more than one in 12 months | Permission, business contact within 180 days or a current relationship, licensed-professional appointment exclusion, due-care procedures, no knowing violation |
| Failure to identify the caller, or blocking caller ID | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.1104, § 407.1107 | Same as above | Recorded opening scripts, carrier caller ID records |
| Unlawful telemarketing practices, including calls outside 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.1076, § 407.1082 | Actual and punitive damages and attorney fees for a consumer who suffers a loss or harm | Permission, established business relationship, business-to-business calls, no loss or harm |
| Attorney general enforcement | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.1107 | Civil penalty up to $5,000 per knowing violation, plus an injunction | Same defenses, plus challenges to the scope of an investigative demand |
Does Missouri have a separate telemarketing statute?
Yes, and it reaches conduct the no-call law doesn’t. Section 407.1076 lists unlawful telemarketing practices, including calling a consumer’s home “at any time other than between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. local time” and calling someone who has said they don’t want calls from the seller.
The private remedy for that statute is different. Section 407.1082 lets a consumer who “suffers a loss or harm” recover “actual and punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs and any other remedies provided by law.” There’s no fixed per-call figure, which makes the loss-or-harm element the first thing to test.
Section 407.1085 exempts calls made with the consumer’s permission, calls to a consumer “with whom the seller has an established business relationship,” and most business-to-business calls. A company calling other businesses is outside this statute unless it’s selling office or cleaning supplies.
Can the attorney general find a caller through its phone carrier?
Yes. In State ex rel. Koster v. Charter Communications, Inc., 461 S.W.3d 851 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015), the attorney general sent investigative demands to a phone company seeking records about a customer suspected of violating the no-call and telemarketing laws. The carrier refused, citing federal privacy law.
The Court of Appeals ordered it to comply. The court held that “the CIDs issued by the AG are administrative subpoenas” under the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and it ordered the carrier “to produce the non-content basic subscriber information” the demands sought.
For a business, the point is practical. A calling vendor that hides behind rotating numbers won’t stay anonymous in a Missouri investigation, and the seller it calls for will likely be the next one to get a demand.
What to gather when a Missouri no-call claim arrives
- Put a litigation hold on the call and text logs for the claimant’s number, and note whether each contact was a voice call, a prerecorded message, or a text.
- Pull the internal do-not-call entries and every STOP or opt-out request for the number, with dates, across each vendor.
- Collect the national Registry scrub records for Missouri numbers and the version date used for each campaign.
- Gather the vendor contracts, the calling scripts, and the documents showing the business’s compliance procedures were actually followed.
- Have a lawyer review the file before the business answers the demand, contacts the claimant, or offers anything to settle.
Step four is where the due-care defense gets built. Lawyers defending Missouri no-call claims will look first at whether the business can prove its procedures ran. The earlier posts on telemarketer identification rules and on Montana’s no-call law, which carries a similar damages figure, cover the related claims.
Questions about Missouri’s no-call law
Does one text create liability?
No. A private plaintiff must have received more than one solicitation within 12 months from or on behalf of the same seller. One text to a number on the list doesn’t support a private claim under the no-call statute, though it can count in an attorney general investigation and toward a federal Do Not Call claim if more messages follow.
Does the no-call law apply to calls to businesses?
Usually not. The statute protects residential subscribers, and the attorney general’s list “is not intended to include any telephone number primarily used for business or commercial purposes,” according to section 407.1101. A sole proprietor who uses one cell phone for both can blur that line, so the facts about how the number is used matter.
Does a California company have to follow Missouri’s statute?
If it calls or texts Missouri residents, yes. The statute reaches subscribers “in this state,” and section 407.1107 lets Missouri courts exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresidents. A California seller whose vendor reaches Missouri area codes should expect to defend there.
Are charities covered?
Mostly not. The definition excludes fundraising by a 501(c)(3) organization when “a bona fide member of such exempt organization makes the voice communication,” according to section 407.1095. A charity that hires a for-profit calling vendor should check whether that exclusion still applies to it.
Defending Missouri no-call claims
If your company is facing a Missouri no-call claim over texts or calls, the scrub records and the proof that your compliance procedures ran usually decide whether any violation was knowing. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving marketing texts to Missouri numbers on the Do Not Call Registry. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The state statutes are Missouri’s no-call law, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 407.1095, 407.1098, 407.1101, 407.1104, and 407.1107, and its telemarketing practices law, §§ 407.1076, 407.1082, and 407.1085. The federal statute is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the FCC’s rule is 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.
The decision discussed is State ex rel. Koster v. Charter Communications, Inc., 461 S.W.3d 851 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of July 27, 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.