Tennessee’s New Solicitation Oversight Law

What HB 2408/SB 2659 Means for Companies That Call or Text Tennessee Consumers

Tennessee’s General Assembly unanimously passed House Bill 2408 and its companion, Senate Bill 2659, a measure that adds a new oversight mechanism to the state’s existing telephone and text message solicitation framework. Carried by Representative Baum in the House and Senator White in the Senate, the legislation cleared both chambers without a single dissenting vote—94-0 in the House on April 6, 2026, and 33-0 in the Senate on April 21, 2026. It was signed by the Speaker on April 30, 2026, and transmitted to Governor Lee on May 7, 2026.  If signed by the Governor, the amendment will apply to conduct occurring on or after July 1, 2026.

Although the bill’s text is short relative to many telemarketing measures considered in recent sessions, the policy signal it sends to regulated industries is significant. The General Assembly is asking for visibility into compliance.  That visibility has practical consequences for any business that places telephone or text message solicitations in Tennessee.

What the Bill Does

HB 2408/SB 2659 amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 47, Chapter 18 (Consumer Telemarketing Protection), Title 65 (Public Utilities and Carriers), and Title 67. As introduced, the operative substantive provision requires the Tennessee Public Utility Commission (the “Commission”) to deliver an annual report on compliance with the state’s existing telephone and text message solicitation laws. The report is directed to two specific legislative recipients: the chair of the House committee with jurisdiction over commerce and the chair of the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee.

The report covers persons and entities that make telephone or text message solicitations to Tennessee residential subscribers. In effect, the bill builds a legislative feedback loop on whether the Commission’s Do Not Call/Do Not Text Register, the registration system, and the substantive solicitor obligations in PUC Chapter 1220-04-11 are working as intended.

Why a Reporting Requirement Matters

It is tempting to read a reporting bill and conclude that it does not change anyone’s compliance obligations. That conclusion would be a mistake. A statutory reporting requirement directed at a regulator typically produces three downstream effects that solicitors should plan for.

First, increased data collection at the agency level. The Commission will need to track complaint volumes, registrant compliance, enforcement actions, and recurring violators in a more structured way to produce an annual report worth submitting. Solicitors should anticipate that their registration records, complaint histories, and enforcement files will be reviewed and aggregated more rigorously than before.

Second, enhanced legislative attention. When committee chairs receive an annual report, the natural follow-up is hearings, oversight questions to agency leadership, and, in many cases, additional legislation in subsequent sessions. This bill is best understood as the front end of a multi-year compliance conversation, not the end of one.

Third, a more aggressive enforcement posture. Agencies whose performance is measured publicly tend to demonstrate that they are using their tools. The Attorney General, who shares enforcement authority with the Commission, may have renewed reason to pursue civil actions that yield measurable results for the report.

Existing Obligations That the Report Will Track

The reporting requirement does not alter the substantive rules already binding on solicitors, but it puts a brighter light on them. Solicitors and the businesses that engage them should confirm they remain in compliance with the existing framework, including:

• Annual registration with the Commission and payment of the $500 registration fee, due by May 1 each year (Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1220-04-11-.04).
• Strict calling and texting hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. local time at the called party’s location.
• Caller ID transmission requirements and prohibitions on spoofing or caller ID blocking (T.C.A. § 47-18-1526; Rule 1220-04-11-.02).
• Identification of the caller and the represented entity at the outset of every call or text.
• Use of the most recent monthly version of the Do Not Call/Do Not Text Register before contacting Tennessee residential subscribers.
• Maintenance of an internal do-not-call list consistent with 47 C.F.R. § 64 and 16 C.F.R. § 310.
• For principal solicitors using independent solicitors, the notice and recordkeeping requirements under the 2024 PUC rule amendments.

Civil penalties under the existing framework remain meaningful: up to $2,000 per violation under T.C.A. § 65-4-405, and up to $1,000 per violation under T.C.A. § 47-18-1526. The affirmative defense of “reasonable practices and procedures” remains available to defendants who have invested in a documented compliance infrastructure, precisely the kind of program the new reporting regime will reward.

Industries Most Affected

Although the bill applies generally to anyone soliciting Tennessee residential subscribers by call or text, the practical impact will fall most heavily on:

• Consumer finance and lending—mortgage, auto finance, personal loans, and credit servicing—that rely on outbound dialing or SMS for marketing and customer outreach.
• Insurance carriers, agents, and lead aggregators in property and casualty, life, and health verticals.
• Home services—HVAC, roofing, solar, and home warranty programs.
• Healthcare marketing and telehealth providers contacting consumers for service offerings rather than treatment.
• Debt relief, credit repair, and tax resolution firms.
• B2C technology, fintech, and subscription services running SMS notification or marketing programs.
• Lead generators and performance marketers operating under one-to-one consent regimes.
• Charitable fundraisers, political committees, and not-for-profit affiliates, which retain identification and recordkeeping obligations even where exempt from certain restrictions.

Practical Takeaways

Three steps are warranted now for clients with active or planned Tennessee outreach. First, conduct a documented compliance audit covering registration status, scrubbing cadence, calling-hour controls, caller ID configuration, internal do-not-call processes, and vendor oversight. Second, refresh written policies and training to reflect the 2024 PUC rule amendments and current federal TCPA and FCC consent rules. Third, build the affirmative-defense file now, agencies whose reports show steady enforcement output tend to reward documented programs and pursue undocumented ones.

The General Assembly has chosen oversight rather than overhaul. Smart solicitors will treat that as an invitation, not a reprieve.

If you would like a compliance review tailored to your Tennessee outreach program or have questions about how HB 2408/SB 2659 interacts with your existing TCPA and state telemarketing program, please contact the attorneys at Troutman Amin LLP.