05 / TCPA Legal Library
The law, decoded.
Jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
A complete reference for Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims — statutory language, comparable state statutes, leading case law, plaintiff-friendly forums, free research databases, and how to build a state-level claim. Read-only and ephemeral.
Research a caller firstComplete statutory language
The federal TCPA broken into its operative provisions, with the FCC regulation that fills in the detail, and a cross-section of comparable state statutes you can stack or substitute.
It is unlawful for any person to make any call using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any emergency line, guest or patient room of a hospital, or — absent prior express consent — any residential telephone line.
▸ Practical Targets landline robocalls. Requires prior express consent (written for telemarketing after the 2012 FCC Order).
Florida
Fla. Stat. § 501.059Restricts telephonic sales calls; requires prior express written consent for prerecorded/sales calls. Private right of action to enjoin violations and recover the greater of actual damages or $500 per violation (no statutory trebling under the FTSA).
▸ Note Often pled alongside the TCPA to stack per-call exposure; the FTSA does not treble damages — the $1,500-willful figure is the TCPA's, not Florida's.
California
Cal. Civ. Code § 1785–1786Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act extends to electronic communications; Consumer Call Protection Act restricts autodialed calls/texts and requires consent; state-level statutory damages plus Rosenthal penalties.
▸ Note Capon v. Monogram — Rosenthal reaches 'electronic communications' including texts.
Texas
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 305.051–.053Requires prior express invitation or consent for recorded messages; private right of action with civil penalties; AG enforcement.
▸ Note Narrower than TCPA but useful for stacking state treble exposure.
New York
N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 399-p; N.Y. CPLRRestricts telemarketing hours and requires written agreements; no broad private TCPA-style damages but UDAP (GBL § 349) claims available for deceptive calls.
▸ Note Leverage GBL § 349 ($50–$250 actual, trebled for willful) on top of TCPA for deceptive scripting.
Illinois
815 ILCS 411Requires notice and consent for recorded sales calls; Consumer Fraud Act reaches deceptive telemarketing with attorney's fees.
▸ Note Illinois Consumer Fraud Act opens fee-shifting and treble damages for deceptive conduct.
Washington
RCW 19.190Prohibits misleading marketing communications; private CPA action with injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and penalties.
▸ Note Strong CPA fee-shifting makes individual suits economically viable.
Informational only — not legal advice and not a substitute for counsel. Statutes and case law are summarized for orientation; always verify the current text of any authority before relying on it. This library is read-only and updated periodically.