Consumer protection: marketing and advertising; telephone solicitation act; create. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: SB 0352'25, SB 0353'25, SB 0354'25, SB 0355'25
SB 351 creates the Michigan Telephone Solicitation Act, a comprehensive new framework governing telemarketing calls and texts. The bill defines telephone solicitation broadly to cover voice calls, prerecorded messages, texts, multimedia messages, and VoIP communications used to sell goods or services, solicit donations, seek personal information, promote jobs or investments, or obtain value through deceptive means. It generally bans prerecorded solicitation messages, restricts calls to numbers on the national Do-Not-Call Registry, and requires callers to identify themselves and the organization behind the contact at the start of the communication.
The bill also imposes detailed conduct rules on telephone solicitors and the businesses behind them. It prohibits caller ID spoofing and misleading origin information, limits autodialer use unless the recipient has given express verifiable authorization or another listed exception applies, and bars abusive calling practices such as repeated harassment or calls outside 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. It requires written, signed contracts for covered telephone solicitation sales, with specific disclosures and cancellation rights, and makes certain deceptive practices unlawful, including false statements about prices, prizes, refunds, investments, employment opportunities, and personal information collection.
SB 351 would create a new state act and add enforceable standards for telemarketing, robocalls, text-message solicitations, and related lead-generation practices in Michigan. It gives the attorney general authority to seek injunctions, civil fines, investigative demands, and assurances of discontinuance, and it authorizes private lawsuits by injured consumers for actual damages or a statutory minimum recovery plus attorney fees. The bill also incorporates federal telemarketing and TCPA violations into state law, extends special protections for vulnerable individuals and vulnerable telephone numbers, and requires recordkeeping for four years. The act would not take effect unless companion bills SB 352 through SB 355 are also enacted.
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received. It was reported favorably from committee by a 5-2 vote and later passed the Senate unanimously, 37-0. That pattern indicates broad support for stronger consumer protections against unwanted and deceptive telephone solicitation, especially robocalls and spoofed calls.
The main policy tensions appear to be between consumer protection and the operational burdens placed on telemarketers, charities, lead generators, and businesses that use phone outreach. The bill’s broad definitions, strict disclosure requirements, autodialer limits, and high civil penalties could be viewed as especially burdensome for legitimate callers, while supporters likely see those provisions as necessary to curb fraud, harassment, and targeting of vulnerable people. The bill also contains exceptions for charitable organizations, existing customers, debt collection, and certain educational, political, religious, and survey calls, reflecting an effort to balance regulation with protected or routine communications.