MICHIGAN’S SUPER TCPA RETURNS: The 2022 Bill With a $25,000 Per Violation Refuses to Die—Passes Senate And Now In the House!

Michigan has returned with its monstrous Telephone Solicitation Act—Senate Bill 351. Long time TCPA dwellers remember when the bill originally entered the House back in 2022—then was reintroduced by the Senate in 2024. Well buckle up folks, because Michigan’s Telephone Solicitation Act has now passed the Michigan Senate and is currently sitting in the House’s lap. The house has given it a first read and it’s been referred to the House’s Committee On Regulatory Reform.

If passed, it will become one of the most comprehensive and enforcement-friendly telemarketing statutes in the country.

We’ve seen a flood of new state telemarketing laws over the past few years. Some are laughably vague. Some are so sloppily put together they don’t last very long and nobody’s quite sure what they were even trying to accomplish. And some flat out contradict themselves. But Michigan’s not-so-new proposed “Telephone Solicitation Act” v. 2025 may put them all to shame.

As the Czar warned in 2022, indeed, this thing is an outright monster, and generally includes:

Private right of action that allows up to $1,000 PER CALL plus attorneys’ fees if the consumer “suffers a loss”
A strict definition of consent–”Express verifiable authorization” means a written agreement
A weirdly novel “vulnerable number” protection for elder abuse
Four companion Senate bills (SB 352–SB 355)—bills amending existing Michigan telemarketing laws TCPAWorld is already familiar with: Michigan Consumer Protection Act and the Home Solicitation Sales Act

To add to the fun, Michigan’s AG can sue for $25,000 per violation, and serve pre-suit discovery on anyone with information regarding a violation.

Yeah. That bad. Luckily (or maybe not so lucky for violators), unlike many mini-TCPAs, the Michigan Telephone Solicitation Act is very direct and easy to read.

Here’s what you need to know about this Michigan’s not-so-new TSA RIGHT NOW:

Clear Ban on Recorded Messages

Section 3 of the bill states that a person shall not make a telephone solicitation using a recorded message, in whole or in part. But the term “telephone solicitation” excludes calls with “express verifiable authorization”—i.e. consent:

(o) “Telephone solicitation” does not include any of the following:

(i) For the purpose of encouraging the recipient to purchase, rent, receive, or invest in goods or services or make a contribution to a charitable organization.

(ii) For the purpose of encouraging the recipient to provide personal information, including, but not limited to, identity, financial, or preferences information, to defraud or wrongfully obtain anything of value.

(iii) For the purpose of encouraging the recipient to accept or participate in any employment, whether temporary or permanent, contracting, investment, or other income opportunity, to defraud or wrongfully obtain anything of value.

(iv) For the purpose of encouraging the recipient to accept a prize promotion.

(v) For the purpose of encouraging the recipient or a member of the recipient’s family to avoid liability, legal or otherwise, to defraud or wrongfully obtain anything of value.

(vi) On behalf of a political organization.

A telephone solicitation also includes text messages and voice communications.

Michigan TSA Requires “Express Verifiable Authorization” (EVA)—Closely Tracking the TCPA’s PEWC

A HUGE shift from the 2022 bill, the 2025 Michigan bill introduces its own: “express verifiable authorization” (EVA)—closely tracking the Troutman Nine’s “prior express written consent” (PEWC) standard.

Defined in Section 2(h), EVA includes:

(i) A signature of the subscriber being called. As used in this 3 subparagraph, “signature” includes an electronic or digital signature, if the form of signature used is a valid signature form under federal law or another law of this state.

(ii) Clear authorization that the telephone solicitor may deliver or cause to be delivered a telephone solicitation to the subscriber using an ADAD, a recorded message, or a prerecorded voicemail.

(iii) The telephone number to which the subscriber authorizes a telephone solicitation to be delivered.

(iv) A clear and conspicuous disclosure that informs the subscriber of both of the following:

(A) By executing the agreement, the subscriber authorizes the telephone solicitor to deliver or cause to be delivered a telephone solicitation to the subscriber using an ADAD, a recorded message, or a prerecorded voicemail.

(B) The subscriber is not required to directly or indirectly sign the written agreement, or to agree to enter into the agreement as a condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services.

Case law will assist here but this definition appears to be a similar standard to PEWC in my view.

Ban on Calls to DNC Numbers

Section 5(1) prohibits making a “telephone solicitation” to any number on the National Do Not Call Registry, unless an exception under applies (e.g., EVA, existing customer, charitable organization).

Ban on “Lead Generation” Involving Numbers on the DNC

Section 5(2) is specifically for lead generators. It explicitly prohibits a person from including DNC-listed numbers in lead generation. This means compiling, sharing, or selling lists that include DNC numbers is unlawful in Michigan—even if no calls are made.

“A person shall not include the telephone number of a residential telephone subscriber that is on the most current version of the do-not-call list in a lead generation.”

“Lead generation” means the sourcing, sale, subscription, leasing, renting, distribution, purchase, wholesaling, or transfer of a list of telephone numbers utilized or intended to be utilized for telephone solicitations.

Required Disclosures by Telephone Solicitors

Under Section 7(1)-(3), all telephone solicitors must disclose on telephone solicitations and text messages:

The solicitor’s full name.
If the telephone solicitation is a text message, the organization or other person on whose behalf the text message is initiated.
If the telephone solicitation is a voice communication, the telephone solicitor’s true first and last name and the full name, address, and telephone number of the organization or other person on whose behalf the call is initiated.
A callback number that is reachable between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. local time at the subscriber’s residence.

Failure to provide or maintain an operational callback number is a separate violation.

Strict Caller ID and Number Usage Rules—Michigan’s Answer to Spoofing/DID Abuse

Section 7(4) prohibits:

Blocking caller ID.
Displaying false, misleading, or inaccurate caller information
Using another person’s number without consent.
Rotating or changing numbers to obscure identity.

ADAD Ban for “Vulnerable” Numbers

Section 9 makes it unlawful to use an autodialing device (ADAD) to make “telephone solicitations” to:

Numbers listed on the DNC registry.
Vulnerable telephone numbers

Vulnerable Numbers include hospitals, emergency lines, and those belonging to folks 75 or older and those who have disabilities under Michigan’s civil rights act.

“ADAD” means any device or system of devices that is used, whether alone or in conjunction with other equipment, for the purpose of automatically selecting or dialing telephone numbers. The ADAD definition is broad and there is no need for random/sequential logic, making this more expansive than the TCPA’s ATDS.

Notably, ADAD calls made with “EVA” and/or to an existing customer are exempted.

TSR-Style Contract Rules and Misrepresentation Ban

Section 17 requires that any contract resulting from a telephone solicitation include:

A clear notice of the consumer’s 7-day cancellation right.
A bold statement reading: “You are not obligated to pay any money unless you sign this contract and return it to the seller.”

It also prohibits:

Misrepresenting the cost, identity, material terms, refund policies, or nature of goods/services.
Using deceptive practices during or after a call.

This mirrors federal TSR fraud provisions. The TSA contains a litany of rules for over-the-phone sales, and provides a 7 day return policy on all such sales. It also requires all contracts to contain, in bold, conspicuous type immediately preceding the signature the words “You are not obligated to pay any money unless you sign this contract and return it to the seller.”

Time-of-Day Restrictions—TSA Tracks TCPA Call Time Hours

Under Section 15(c), “telephone solicitations” may only be made between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m., unless express verifiable authorization exists for other hours.

TCPA Violation = TSA Violation

Section 19 incorporates the TCPA, 47 USC 227, and 16 CFR Part 310 (TSR) by reference. Any violation of those laws is automatically a violation of Michigan law, meaning violators could face federal and state liability simultaneously.

Michigan AG’s Office Can Seek Massive $25,000 PER VIOLATION!

Section 25 allows the Michigan AG to seek civil penalties of:

Up to $25,000 per violation (standard).
Up to $50,000 for violations targeting vulnerable individuals.
Up to $75,000–$100,000 for persistent or knowing violations of vulnerable number protections.

In addition, Section 27 provides for injunctive relief, restitution, and investigative cost recovery.

Private Right of Action With a Minimum of $1,000 Per Call (Plus Attorneys’ Fees) And “Loss” Requirement

Section 35 gives individuals a private right of action if they suffer a “loss” due to a violation of the Act. If they can show a loss, they are entitled to:

Statutory damages of $1,000 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater.
Reasonable attorney fees.

This requirement that plaintiffs prove actual harm may limit abusive filings. But for now it is unclear what Michigan courts qualify as “loss” in this context–is annoyance enough, or is monetary loss (such as from being scammed) required?

Last but Not Least—TSA Provides Pre-Suit Investigatory Powers for AG

Finally, Section 31 grants the AG pre-suit subpoena authority, including interrogatories, requests for production and depositions under oath, even before a complaint is filed.

The AG can require any person to answer questions, produce documents, or provide testimony if the AG believes they “may possess information” about a violation. If someone intentionally tries to avoid or interfere with a civil investigation by hiding, destroying, altering, or withholding documents after receiving a formal demand or order they can be fined up to $10,000 per violation, on top of any other penalties.

+++

Well there you have it. I am sure Dobronski is over the moon now that Michigan’s TSA has its bite back. Maybe I’ll invite him to join Queenie’s HIGHLY ANTICIPATED Shark Tank panel at this year’s LCOC IV to get his thoughts on how he intends on taking advantage of Michigan’s TSA if passed.

And here’s a lovely picture of the Baroness smiling to brighten your day after subjecting you to that eyesore of a Wolverine up top. Just like their football team – hopefully the Michigan TSA bill turns out to be all hype and underwhelming.