A bill once expected to die quietly in Michigan’s Republican-controlled House just cleared the Senate 37-0. Here's what happened, what changed, and why businesses should be paying close attention to SB 351.
When we last covered Michigan Senate Bill 351 in December 2025, our analysis concluded with a prediction: the bill would most likely die in the Republican-controlled House without receiving a floor vote. That assessment was reasonable at the time. SB 351 had passed out of the Senate Finance, Insurance, and Consumer Protection Committee on December 3, 2025, but the conventional wisdom held that a bill imposing aggressive new telemarketing penalties and a broad private right of action would find little appetite among House Republicans aligned with business interests. That assessment needs revisiting.
SB 351: What Happened?
On January 29, 2026, the Michigan Senate unanimously passed SB 351. Not a single senator—Democrat or Republican—voted against it. As most readers are aware, in this charged political climate, a unanimous vote on any subject is a noteworthy event, but when a bill like SB 351, which was so vehemently opposed by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and numerous business groups, passes without a single “nay,” the message is clear: this golden ticket for litigation abuse will ultimately become law.
The vote underscores Americans’ long-standing universal disdain for telemarketing. For the past 40 years, no elected official ever lost a vote by cracking down on the industry, a truth further amplified by the recent deluge of illegal robocalls.
This sentiment was eloquently put into words by Sen. Ed McBroom (R-Waucedah Twp.), who described how when his mother aged into Medicare, "her phone was overwhelmed with calls every 45 seconds for hours," coming five days a week and sometimes on Saturdays. "We eventually just shut her phone off. If she would turn it on to make a call, we would have to dodge between the robocalls before she could make her outgoing calls." He also recounted visiting a welding shop in his hometown where "90 to 95 percent of the calls are junk mail calls, interrupting their work, forcing them to put everything down." His conclusion: Michigan citizens "are sick and tired of it. They don't want it to continue."
Our prior article assessed that SB 351 would likely die in the Republican House, mirroring the fate of numerous Democratic priorities during Michigan's divided-government era. That remains a plausible outcome, but the 37-0 Senate vote materially changes the analysis for several reasons.
Bipartisan Cover: Every Republican senator voted yes. If the bill dies in the House, it will not be because Republicans broadly oppose it—it will be because House leadership chose to block a bill their own Senate caucus unanimously endorsed. That creates a politically awkward dynamic, especially in an election-conscious environment.
The Fraud Narrative Resonates: Supporters framed SB 351 around fraud prevention, citing FTC data showing a 25% increase in fraud-related consumer losses in 2024 and 53,351 fraud complaints from Michigan consumers, with $204 million reportedly stolen from Michiganders. This narrative aligns with Republican concerns about consumer protection and government accountability.
The Vulnerable Populations Angle: The enhanced penalties for targeting individuals aged 75 and older or persons with disabilities ($50,000–$100,000 per violation) give the bill a politically potent senior-protection dimension. Voting against a bill framed as protecting seniors from robocall scammers is a difficult position to defend in campaign literature.
The Core Compliance Concerns of SB 351
While the political trajectory has shifted, the substantive concerns detailed in our prior article remain fully applicable. SB 351's core provisions have not been altered since substitute S-4 was adopted:
- Blanket ban on recorded messages— Even with consumer consent, prerecorded content in solicitation calls would be prohibited, going well beyond federal TCPA requirements.
- Expansive ADAD definition — The definition of automated dialing devices captures virtually any system used for "automatically selecting or dialing telephone numbers," reverting to a pre-Facebook v. Duguid standard that could encompass CRM platforms, marketing automation tools, and standard business phone systems.
- $1,000 statutory damages with a private right of action — Quadrupling the current $250 threshold, with per-communication violation counting, class action availability, and a four-year statute of limitations.
- Quiet hours restrictions (8:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. local time)— With the continuing practical challenge of determining a mobile phone user's real-time location.
- Attorney General civil fines up to $25,000 per violation— With each communication potentially constituting a separate violation and a single communication potentially generating multiple violations.
One notable floor fight occurred before the final vote. Senator McBroom offered an amendment to strip the bill’s exemption for political calls and text messages. The amendment failed, meaning the bill continues to exempt legislators and candidates from the very restrictions they are imposing on commercial callers. Go figure.
Industry Reaction
Industry opposition remains vocal. The Ecommerce Innovation Alliance warned that SB 351 advances despite "significant risks to ecommerce" and "industry warnings". Convoso's analysis noted that the bill "closely resembles a 2022 proposal often referred to as Michigan's super TCPA" and cautioned that "broad definitions and aggressive penalties may increase litigation risk for legitimate call centers, lead generators, and outbound sales teams operating in compliance with federal law".
The Michigan Chamber of Commerce's earlier characterization of the bill as a "blueprint for litigation abuse" that would trigger "shakedown lawsuits" has not softened. However, the unanimous Senate vote suggests that these arguments, while resonating with some in the business community, did not persuade a single senator to vote no.
As our prior article detailed at length, Florida's experience with its amended mini-TCPA (the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act) remains the most instructive precedent. After enactment in 2021, litigation surged against legitimate businesses without reducing robocall volume. The litigation wave was severe enough that the Florida Legislature took corrective action in 2023 with House Bill 761.
Michigan would be wise to learn from Florida's experience, but nothing in the current legislative momentum suggests that lesson is being absorbed. The political appeal of "cracking down on robocallers" consistently overwhelms the more nuanced argument that private rights of action with statutory damages disproportionately burden compliant businesses rather than the overseas scam operations actually responsible for consumer harm.
What Happens Next
Given the unanimous Senate vote, the compliance posture for businesses operating in Michigan should shift from "monitor" to "prepare." Even if the bill stalls in the House Regulatory Reform Committee during the current session, it will almost certainly return—and the 37-0 vote gives it substantial legislative momentum.
The honest assessment is that predicting this bill's fate in the House is harder now than it was in December. A unanimous Senate vote gives SB 351 a legitimacy and momentum that most state mini-TCPA proposals never achieve. The Republican-controlled House could still bottle the bill up in committee—Speaker Hall has shown no hesitation in exercising procedural control over the legislative calendar—but doing so means actively killing a bill that every Republican senator supported.
As for the SB 351’s future, the most likely scenarios, in rough order of probability, are:
- Committee hold with eventual passage in modified form: The House Regulatory Reform Committee holds the bill for several months, then advances an amended version that narrows certain provisions (potentially the ADAD definition or the private right of action damages threshold) to address industry concerns while preserving the core enforcement framework.
- Passage substantially as-is: The bill's political momentum and bipartisan Senate support carry it through the House with minimal changes.
- Committee stall through end of session: Committee leadership quietly allows the bill to languish without scheduling a hearing, effectively killing it for the current session while avoiding a recorded vote against it.
Regardless of which scenario plays out, the direction of travel is clear. Michigan is moving toward significantly enhanced telemarketing regulation. The only questions are timing and final form. Businesses that wait for enactment to begin compliance preparation will find themselves behind.
