AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39; Title 47 and Title 65, relative to consumer protection.
HB2225 creates a new Tennessee consumer-protection framework governing telephone solicitations, robocalls, and related telemarketing practices. The bill largely codifies and expands restrictions on unwanted calls and texts by prohibiting telephone solicitations to numbers on the do-not-call registry, requiring callers to identify themselves, limiting calling hours, requiring removal from contact lists after a consumer opts out, and imposing additional rules for calls involving minors, abusive language, recordkeeping, and consent. It also defines and regulates robocalls broadly, including prerecorded voice messages, soundboard calls, ringless voicemail, and certain spam or scam text messages.
The bill also adds special rules for consent and exceptions. It allows calls to consumers with prior express written consent, an established business relationship, certain nonprofit, small-business, appointment-setting, newspaper subscription, and other limited categories, and it sets out detailed standards for proving consent. It further restricts spoofing and impersonation of government officials, and it addresses robocalls tied to debt collection, utilities, health insurance, product recalls, prescription notifications, and court notices. The act would take effect October 1, 2026, and apply only to conduct occurring on or after that date.
HB2225 would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 47 and 65 by creating a new part in the Consumer Protection Act that gives the attorney general enforcement authority, authorizes civil penalties, and creates a private right of action for affected telephone subscribers. It would also require local exchange companies and the Tennessee Public Utilities Commission to help distribute do-not-call information, and it authorizes the attorney general to develop and maintain a state registry if the federal registry becomes unavailable after January 1, 2027. The bill would affect telemarketers, robocallers, businesses using outbound calling or texting campaigns, and consumers who receive such communications, while also tying compliance to federal telemarketing rules and related FCC/FTC regulations.
The bill’s structure and findings indicate a strongly consumer-protection-oriented purpose, emphasizing privacy, fraud prevention, and nuisance reduction from unwanted calls. Even without recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the text suggests the measure is designed to be favorable to consumers and to legitimate businesses that comply with telemarketing rules. The overall tone is regulatory and enforcement-focused rather than permissive, with substantial detail aimed at curbing abusive calling practices.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the restrictions and the compliance burden they place on telemarketers and businesses that use phone outreach. The bill’s broad definition of robocalls, inclusion of certain text messages, strict do-not-call enforcement, and private right of action with escalating damages could be viewed as significant exposure for callers. At the same time, the bill preserves multiple exceptions for nonprofits, small businesses, established business relationships, and certain informational or public-safety calls, reflecting an attempt to balance consumer privacy with commercial, charitable, political, and emergency communications interests.