Michigan is poised to dramatically reshape its telemarketing regulatory landscape through Senate Bill 351, which passed the state Senate in December 2025 and now awaits action in the House of Representatives. If enacted, SB 351 would create an entirely new "Michigan Telephone Solicitation Act" with substantially enhanced consumer protections and enforcement mechanisms that could fundamentally alter how businesses communicate with Michigan residents.
Main Article Takeaways
SB 351 Creates Substantially Stricter Telemarketing Rules Than Federal Law.
Michigan’s proposed Senate Bill 351 goes far beyond federal TCPA requirements by establishing a complete ban on recorded messages (even with consent), defining automated dialing devices more broadly than the Supreme Court’s Facebook v. Duguid standard to capture virtually any modern business communication system, imposing “quiet hours” restrictions, and dramatically increasing penalties.
SB 351 Will Trigger a Litigation Surge Against Legitimate Businesses, Not Scammers
Florida’s experience with a similar mini-TCPA law provides a cautionary precedent: after enactment in 2021, litigation surged immediately but did not reduce robocall volume, with lawsuits overwhelmingly targeting legitimate domestic businesses rather than international scam operations. Federal TCPA litigation has also exploded in 2025, driven largely by a small number of plaintiffs’ firms with repeat plaintiffs, suggesting a business model built around identifying technical violations for settlement leverage rather than stopping fraudulent robocalls.
Businesses Face Significant Operational and Financial Risks if SB 351 Becomes Law
The combination of statutory damages untethered from actual harm, per-call violation counting, class action availability, and a four-year lookback period creates massive exposure for businesses. A single allegedly non-compliant marketing campaign reaching thousands of Michigan residents could theoretically generate millions in statutory damages.
Overview of SB 351's Major Provisions
SB 351 represents nothing less than a comprehensive overhaul of Michigan's telemarketing regulations, replacing and expanding provisions currently scattered across the state's Home Solicitation Sales Act. The bill's reach extends far beyond traditional voice calls to encompass virtually all forms of telephone-based commercial communication.
Expanded Scope of Regulated Communications: The legislation defines "telephone communication" broadly to include voice calls, text messages, SMS graphics, images, photographs, and multimedia messages, including those transmitted via mobile applications. This expansive definition reflects the modern reality of multi-channel marketing but also creates compliance obligations across numerous communication platforms that businesses use to reach consumers.
A "telephone solicitation" under SB 351 encompasses communications designed to encourage recipients to purchase goods or services, provide personal information, accept employment opportunities, participate in prize promotions, or avoid liability. However, the law provides important exemptions for communications made with express verifiable authorization, messages to existing customers (unless they've opted out), debt collection communications compliant with other laws, and business-to-business communications.
Ban on Recorded Messages: One of the most significant restrictions in SB 351 is the complete prohibition on using recorded messages—in whole or in part—for telephone solicitations. This represents a blanket ban that goes beyond federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) requirements, which generally permit prerecorded messages with prior express written consent for marketing calls to cell phones. Under SB 351, even with consumer consent, marketers would be prohibited from using any recorded content in solicitation calls to Michigan residents.
Do-Not-Call List Compliance and Enhanced Requirements: The legislation mandates compliance with the national Do-Not-Call Registry maintained by the Federal Trade Commission, with limited exceptions for charitable organizations that meet specific conditions. Telephone solicitors must also refrain from calling any consumer or business that has requested not to receive communications from the specific organization.
Moreover, at the beginning of each telephone solicitation, the caller must state their true first and last name and provide the full name, address, and telephone number of the organization on whose behalf the call is initiated. This information must be available to a live person during traditional business hours, and that person must be able to describe the organization's purpose and operations
“Quiet Hours" Restrictions: SB 351 prohibits telephone solicitations between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. local time at the subscriber's residence unless the subscriber has provided express verifiable authorization. Industry critics have highlighted the practical impossibility of determining a mobile phone user's real-time location to ensure compliance with local time restrictions, particularly given Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) rules that restrict carriers from sharing such location data.
Automated Dialing Device Restrictions: The bill prohibits the use of any "Automated Dialing Announcing Device" (ADAD)—defined as any device or system used for automatically selecting or dialing telephone numbers—unless the caller has express verifiable authorization or the communication falls under specific exemptions. Critically, this definition is significantly broader than the federal TCPA's autodialer definition as narrowed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021), which limited "automatic telephone dialing system" to equipment that uses a random or sequential number generator.
By reverting to a pre-Duguid standard, SB 351 could potentially classify nearly any modern business communication system—including customer relationship management platforms, marketing automation tools, and even standard business phone systems—as prohibited devices unless the caller meets strict authorization requirements.
Express Verifiable Authorization Requirements: For exemptions to apply in various contexts, SB 351 requires "express verifiable authorization," defined as a written agreement that includes the subscriber's signature (including electronic or digital signatures valid under federal or state law), clear authorization to deliver telephone solicitations using automated systems or recorded messages, the specific telephone number authorized to receive such communications, and conspicuous disclosures informing subscribers that they are authorizing such contacts and are not required to agree as a condition of purchasing goods or services.
Caller ID and Anti-Spoofing Provisions: The legislation prohibits telephone solicitors from blocking, restricting, circumventing, or interfering with caller identification services, and from displaying fictitious or misleading names or telephone numbers. Solicitors cannot misrepresent the location of origin or the identity of the caller, nor can they use third parties to accomplish such misrepresentations. These provisions align with federal regulations but provide state-level enforcement mechanisms.
Recordkeeping Requirements: Telephone solicitors must maintain records relating to telephone solicitations for at least four years, corresponding to the statute of limitations. This requirement creates a significant compliance burden but also provides defendants with the ability to demonstrate compliance in litigation.
Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties
SB 351 establishes a dual enforcement system combining government prosecution with private litigation rights, creating multiple avenues for holding violators accountable.
Attorney General Authority: The Michigan Attorney General gains broad authority to investigate and prosecute violations of the act. If the Attorney General has probable cause to believe a person has engaged in unlawful conduct, the AG may bring civil actions for injunctive relief and civil fines of up to $25,000 per violation. Notably, each telephone communication may be considered a separate violation, and a single telephone communication may generate multiple separate violations, meaning penalties can accumulate rapidly.
For violations knowingly targeting vulnerable individuals—defined as persons age 75 or older or individuals with disabilities—civil fines increase dramatically to $50,000 per violation, or $75,000 for persistent and knowing violations. When violations knowingly target or mimic vulnerable telephone numbers (emergency numbers, hospital numbers, government entity numbers, or school numbers), fines escalate further to $75,000 per violation or $100,000 for persistent and knowing violations.
Private Right of Action: Perhaps the most consequential enforcement provision is Section 35's private right of action, which allows any person who suffers a loss as a result of a violation to bring a civil action to recover either actual damages plus reasonable attorney fees or $1,000 plus reasonable attorney fees, whichever is greater. This provision does not prevent consumers from also asserting rights under Michigan's existing Home Solicitation Sales Act or any other applicable state or federal law, allowing for potential stacking of claims.
The four-year statute of limitations provides a substantial lookback period during which businesses remain exposed to liability. Combined with the provision that each communication may constitute a separate violation, the potential exposure in class action litigation becomes substantial. A single allegedly non-compliant marketing campaign reaching thousands of Michigan residents could theoretically generate millions of dollars in statutory damages.
Comparison to Current Michigan Law
Michigan currently regulates telephone solicitations primarily through the Home Solicitation Sales Act (MCL 445.111 *et seq.*), which already prohibits the use of recorded messages in telephone solicitations, requires compliance with do-not-call lists, mandates caller disclosure requirements, and prohibits interference with caller identification functions. Violations of the current law's unfair or deceptive practices provisions allow consumers to recover actual damages or $250, whichever is greater, together with reasonable attorney fees.
SB 351 substantially enhances these protections by increasing statutory damages from $250 to $1,000, creating significantly higher civil fines for violations, adding enhanced penalties for targeting vulnerable populations, establishing comprehensive quiet hours restrictions, broadening the definition of prohibited automated dialing systems, and creating more detailed express authorization requirements. The proposed law represents both a consolidation and significant expansion of consumer protections.
Will SB 351 Lead to an Increase in Civil Telemarketing Litigation?
As the Magic 8 Ball says, “signs point to yes.” Multiple factors suggest that if enacted, SB 351 would likely trigger a substantial increase in private civil litigation against businesses engaged in telephone-based marketing to Michigan consumers.
The TCPA Litigation Explosion
The federal TCPA has generated an extraordinary volume of private litigation since its enactment in 1991, and that litigation has accelerated dramatically in recent years despite—or perhaps because of—Supreme Court decisions intended to clarify and narrow the law's scope. Through June 2025, at least 1,363 TCPA lawsuits had been filed in U.S. courts, representing a staggering 62% increase over the same period in 2024. The year 2024 itself was already a record-setting year for TCPA litigation, with the highest number of class actions filed in any single year ever.
Approximately 80% of TCPA cases are filed as class actions, a dramatically higher percentage than other federal consumer protection statutes. By comparison, only 4.7% of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cases and 1.3% of Fair Credit Reporting Act cases are filed as class actions. In 2025, there have been over ten times more TCPA class actions than FDCPA class actions, and twenty times more TCPA class actions than FCRA class actions. The average TCPA class action settlement reaches $6.6 million.
This litigation is highly concentrated among a small number of plaintiffs' firms, with repeat plaintiffs accounting for nearly half of all filings. This pattern suggests a business model built around identifying technical violations and pursuing settlement value through class certification leverage, rather than addressing genuine consumer harm from fraudulent robocalls.
State Mini-TCPA Experience: The Florida Case Study
Several states have enacted "mini-TCPA" laws in recent years, and their experience provides instructive evidence about the litigation consequences of state-level private rights of action with statutory damages. Florida's experience is particularly relevant and concerning.
Florida amended its mini-TCPA, the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA), in 2021. The result was an immediate surge in litigation. According to research by the Institute for Legal Reform, the number of TCPA-related claims in Florida increased substantially after the law's enactment.
Critically, the litigation wave did not correlate with a reduction in the volume of robocalls received by Florida residents, which was ostensibly the law's purpose. Instead, lawsuits overwhelmingly targeted legitimate businesses that had obtained some form of consent but allegedly violated technical requirements of the statute, not the international scam operations responsible for the fraudulent robocalls that plague consumers.
The litigation surge was so severe that the Florida Legislature took corrective action in 2023, passing House Bill 761 to scale back the FTSA's provisions and narrow the opportunities for private litigation. This legislative reversal demonstrates that policymakers recognized the law had failed to achieve its consumer protection objectives while imposing substantial costs on legitimate businesses.
Legitimate Business Communications at Risk
The many critics of mini-TCPA laws emphasize that the primary targets of litigation under these statutes are not the international criminal enterprises operating robocall scams, but rather legitimate domestic businesses that maintain some relationship with consumers and are reachable by the U.S. legal system. Scammers operating from overseas are typically judgment-proof and ignore litigation, making them unattractive targets for plaintiffs' attorneys despite being responsible for the fraudulent robocalls that genuinely harm consumers.
By contrast, legitimate businesses—financial institutions sending fraud alerts and account notifications, healthcare providers sending appointment reminders, retailers sending order confirmations and shipping updates, service providers sending service reminders—become targets precisely because they are compliant enough to be sued and have assets to settle claims. The ironic result is that laws ostensibly designed to protect consumers from unwanted communications may actually reduce beneficial communications as businesses curtail messaging programs to avoid litigation risk.
What Happens Next
SB 351 faces significant challenges and uncertainties as it moves forward in Michigan’s legislative process. As of December 16, 2025, SB 351 has passed the Senate and was referred to the Committee of the Whole with substitute S-4 on December 4, 2025. The bill now awaits action in the Michigan House of Representatives, where it faces a substantially different political landscape than when it passed the Democrat-controlled Senate.
The Michigan Chamber of Commerce and numerous business groups have strongly opposed SB 351, characterizing it as creating a “blueprint for litigation abuse” and warning it will trigger “shakedown lawsuits”. Republican legislators are generally more responsive to business community concerns about regulatory burdens and litigation cost.
The most likely outcome given current political dynamics is that SB 351 dies in the Republican-controlled House without receiving a floor vote. This mirrors what happened to numerous Democratic priorities during Michigan’s December 2024 lame duck session, when political divisions prevented passage of bills on both sides of the aisle. However, while likely, this outcome is far from certain. No one ever lost an election by punishing telemarketers.
Whether Michigan legislators will heed industry warnings about litigation abuse or prioritize enhanced consumer protection tools will determine the fate of SB 351. What is clear from extensive litigation data and state experiences is that enactment would likely trigger a significant increase in civil telemarketing litigation, with uncertain benefits for the consumers the law aims to protect.
