Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation Act: A Mini-TCPA for Businesses

Oklahoma’s Telephone Solicitation Act of 2022 bars automated or recorded commercial sales calls and texts without the called party’s signed written consent, prohibits commercial solicitation calls before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m. local time, and limits callers to three calls in 24 hours on the same subject. A called party can sue for actual damages or $500, whichever is greater, and a court may increase that for willful or knowing violations. The statute also carries a long list of exemptions, which is where many defenses begin.

What does the Oklahoma act prohibit?

Three things matter most to businesses calling or texting Oklahoma numbers.

The first is a consent rule for automated sales calls. Under 15 O.S. § 775C.3(A), “A person may not make or knowingly allow a commercial telephonic sales call to be made if such call involves an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed to a number called without the prior express written consent of the called party.”

The second is a calling-hours rule. Under § 775C.4(A), a commercial telephone seller or salesperson may not make “A commercial telephone solicitation phone call before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m. local time in the called person’s time zone.”

The third is a frequency cap: no “More than three commercial telephone solicitation phone calls from any number to a person over a twenty-four-hour period on the same subject matter or issue, regardless of the phone number used to make the call,” also in § 775C.4(A).

The act also requires accurate caller ID. It’s unlawful to fail to transmit the originating number and, when the carrier makes it available, the solicitor’s name, under § 775C.3(B), though a business may substitute the seller’s name and its customer service number “which is answered during regular business hours.”

How does Oklahoma differ from the federal TCPA?

The biggest practical difference is the clock. The federal quiet-hours rule bars telephone solicitations “before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party’s location),” under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1). Oklahoma ends the day an hour earlier. A national campaign scheduled for 8:30 p.m. local time is fine federally and a problem in Oklahoma.

The consent trigger is also different. The federal autodialer claim requires equipment with “the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be called,” under Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021). Oklahoma’s rule depends on “an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers,” and in my reading the word “or” in that phrase reaches more equipment on its face. I’d assume most automated texting platforms fall within it until an Oklahoma court says otherwise.

The three-call cap has no federal counterpart at all.

Federal Do Not Call claims over texts also face a new defense. In Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01074 (C.D. Ill. July 21, 2025), the court held that “Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA does not regulate text messages,” and in Davis v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-477 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2025), the court concluded that a text message isn’t a telephone call under § 227(c)(5) and dismissed the claim on the merits Those rulings bind no other court, but they matter when a plaintiff pairs an Oklahoma claim with a federal one.

Which consent form satisfies the Oklahoma act?

A signed agreement that looks a lot like the FCC’s.

The act defines prior express written consent as a written agreement that “bears the signature of the called party,” authorizes calls “by telephone call, text message, or voicemail transmission” using an automated system, recorded message, or prerecorded voicemail, includes the telephone number, and contains a clear and conspicuous disclosure that signing authorizes those calls and that the person “is not required to sign the written agreement directly or indirectly or to agree to enter into such an agreement as a condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services.” Under the same act, a signature “includes an electronic or digital signature, to the extent that such form of signature is recognized as a valid signature under applicable federal law or state contract law.”

In my view, a form built to the FCC’s written-consent standard will usually satisfy Oklahoma’s too, provided it mentions texts and recorded messages. Note that the act names the “called party,” which it defines as “a person who is the regular user of the telephone number.” A consent signed by an account holder for a number someone else regularly uses is a weak record under that definition.

Which businesses are exempt?

More than most companies realize. Section 775C.5 lists more than 20 categories. Among the ones that matter most to callers:

The act exempts “A person soliciting business from prospective consumers who have an existing business relationship with or who have previously purchased from the business enterprise for which the solicitor is calling if the solicitor is operating under the same business enterprise,” under § 775C.5. There’s no time limit in that text, unlike the FCC’s 18-month window.

It also exempts licensed insurance agents and brokers soliciting within the scope of their licenses, supervised financial institutions and their affiliates operating within the scope of supervised activity, persons licensed under Oklahoma’s real estate license code soliciting within the scope of the license, and a person who has operated a retail business establishment under the same name for at least a year where customers buy at the seller’s location, among others. Several exemptions have their own conditions, so read the exact text before relying on one.

One exemption deserves a close look. The list includes, in its entirety, “A commercial telephone seller;” as paragraph 13 of § 775C.5. The calling-hours and three-call rules in § 775C.4 apply to “A commercial telephone seller or salesperson.” Read literally, the exemption reaches the same sellers that § 775C.4 regulates. Plaintiffs will argue that reading can’t be what the legislature meant. A defendant facing a § 775C.4 claim should still raise it.

An exemption from the Oklahoma act doesn’t exempt a call from the federal TCPA. A bank or insurer exempt in Oklahoma still needs federal consent for autodialed or prerecorded marketing.

What can a plaintiff recover?

Actual damages or $500, with a discretionary increase.

Under § 775C.6, a called party “who is aggrieved by a violation of this act” may sue to enjoin the violation and “Recover actual damages or Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), whichever is greater.” If the court finds the defendant “willfully or knowingly violated this act,” it “may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than three times the amount available.”

Notice what the text doesn’t say. The federal statute awards damages “for each such violation.” Oklahoma’s remedy section doesn’t use per-violation language. I’d argue that the statute authorizes one award per aggrieved party, not one per call. Expect plaintiffs to argue otherwise. In an unopposed default judgment, Silva v. Seven Rock Life Corp., No. 2:23-cv-06407 (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2024), a federal court awarded “$500 for each of the fifteen text messages” without analyzing the question. A contested case may come out differently, and the issue will matter enormously in any class case.

Oklahoma claims and the defenses that answer them

The remedy and trebling language is in § 775C.6. The federal damages rules are in 47 U.S.C. § 227.

Getting ready when an Oklahoma claim arrives

A presumption makes location easy for a plaintiff to plead. A call “made to any area code in this state is made to an Oklahoma resident or to a person in this state at the time of the call,” under § 775C.3(D), and that presumption is rebuttable. Records showing where a customer actually lived can matter. Our posts on Florida’s text claims and Texas SB 140 cover two other state regimes, and the firm’s California TCPA defense page describes how state and federal claims move through litigation. When a claim arrives:

1. Preserve the call and text logs with time stamps and time zones, platform data, and the consent records for the number.
2. Export opt-out and internal do-not-call records with dates, and the per-day call counts for the number.
3. Pull National Do Not Call Registry scrub records and Registry version dates.
4. Collect vendor and lead-source contracts and scripts, any recorded messages, and records showing the customer’s address and any prior purchases.
5. Talk to a lawyer before answering the demand, calling the person back, or offering money.

Questions businesses ask about the Oklahoma act

Does the Oklahoma act cover text messages?

Its consent definition expressly covers calls “by telephone call, text message, or voicemail transmission,” per the act. I’d treat marketing texts to Oklahoma numbers as covered, apply the 8 p.m. cutoff in the recipient’s time zone, and count texts toward the three-per-day cap.

Do we need consent to text our existing customers in Oklahoma?

Maybe not under the Oklahoma act, which exempts solicitations to people with an existing business relationship with, or a prior purchase from, the business. Federal law still applies. Automated marketing texts need written consent under the FCC’s rules unless no autodialer is used.

How do we know a number is in Oklahoma?

The act presumes calls to Oklahoma area codes reach Oklahoma residents or people in the state, but the presumption is rebuttable. Area codes travel with people. If your records show a customer’s address elsewhere, keep them.

Defending Oklahoma solicitation claims

If your company is accused of calling or texting Oklahoma numbers in violation of the Oklahoma act, the time stamps, daily call counts, consent forms, and the exemption that applies usually decide the case. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims under state telephone solicitation laws. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

The Oklahoma statute is the Telephone Solicitation Act of 2022, codified at 15 O.S. §§ 775C.1 to 775C.6, as enacted in Enrolled House Bill 3168, effective November 1, 2022. The codified sections appear without later amendment on the Oklahoma State Courts Network. The federal statute is 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the FCC’s rules are at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as of September 28, 2025.

The court decisions are Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021), and Silva v. Seven Rock Life Corp., No. 2:23-cv-06407 (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2024) (default judgment).

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of September 28, 2025. 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.