TCPA exemptions: what each one does and doesn't cover

Rules read 2026-10-22. The state column covers the three mini-TCPAs read for this page: Florida, Oklahoma and Maryland. Click an exemption for its section.

The national registry and calling-hours rules apply only to a “telephone solicitation”, a call or message that encourages a purchase, rental or investment. The statute writes three exemptions into that definition itself:

The consent rule works differently. It covers calls whatever they are about, sales or not, and it has only two exceptions in the statute's own words: “a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party” (§ 227(b)(1)(A)). Everything else the FCC exempts from it is by rule, with conditions attached. Texts count as calls under both sets of rules. The do-not-call rules for business and what counts as an autodialer cover each rulebook in depth.

Where states come in

Federal law sets a floor. The statute says nothing in it preempts “any State law that imposes more restrictive intrastate requirements” on autodialers, prerecorded messages or telephone solicitations (§ 227(f)(1)). So a federal exemption does not carry into a state law unless that state writes the same one. Florida, Oklahoma and Maryland each wrote their own list, and they do not match the federal one or each other. The mini-TCPA state laws guide compares them in full.

Emergency purposes

Health and safety is the test. A boil-water notice or an evacuation alert reads like one; a past-due reminder, an appointment change or a flash sale does not, however urgent it feels to the business. An emergency call that sells nothing is also outside the do-not-call rules, because it is not a telephone solicitation.

Prior express consent: the exemption that isn't one

The statute lists consent beside emergencies as an exception, but in practice it is the rule: you may autodial or prerecord a call or text to a cell phone once the person has agreed to it. What kind of agreement depends on the message. An informational call needs prior express consent; the FCC has long said that people who knowingly give you their number have given permission to be called at it, “absent instructions to the contrary” (FCC 15-72, para. 141, quoting its 1992 order). A call or text that “includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing” needs prior express written consent (§ 64.1200(a)(2)): a signed agreement that authorizes the seller to deliver “advertisements or telemarketing messages using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice” to a named number (§ 64.1200(f)(9)).

Consent clears the do-not-call registry only in written form. The registry safe harbor asks for permission “evidenced by a signed, written agreement between the consumer and seller which states that the consumer agrees to be contacted by this seller and includes the telephone number” (§ 64.1200(c)(2)(ii)). A customer saying yes on the phone does not meet that. The prior express written consent guide takes the form apart line by line, and the TCPA consent form tool drafts one.

The FCC reads “on behalf of” to include the fundraisers a nonprofit hires. In its 2003 order it said a nonprofit “that conducts its own fundraising campaign or hires a professional fundraiser to do it, will not be subject to the restrictions on telephone solicitations” (FCC 03-153, para. 128). Two limits sit in the same passage. A for-profit company delivering its own commercial message is not covered because it adds a donation to the pitch, and an affiliate of a nonprofit “that is itself not a tax-exempt nonprofit is not exempt” (n. 419).

What a nonprofit still needs

To autodial or prerecord a call or text to a cell phone, a nonprofit needs the person's prior express consent, but not written consent: § 64.1200(a)(2) accepts “the prior express consent of the called party when the call is made by or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit organization”. To a home line, a nonprofit may send prerecorded calls without consent, up to a limit:

Calls made under that limit also bring the internal-list duties of § 64.1200(d): a written policy, trained staff, and each opt-out honoured within 10 business days and kept 5 years.

Under § 64.1200(a)(2), the written-consent rule for marketing robocalls does not apply to “a call that delivers a ‘health care’ message made by, or on behalf of, a ‘covered entity’ or its ‘business associate,’ as those terms are defined in the HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 CFR 160.103”. To a home line, such a prerecorded message needs no consent if the caller makes “no more than one call per day to each patient's residential line, up to a maximum of three calls combined per week” and honours opt-outs (§ 64.1200(a)(3)(v)).

On consent itself, the FCC ruled in 2015 that “provision of a phone number to a healthcare provider constitutes prior express consent for healthcare calls subject to HIPAA by a HIPAA-covered entity and business associates acting on its behalf”, as long as the calls stay “within the scope of the consent given, and absent instructions to the contrary” (FCC 15-72, para. 141).

The no-consent path to a patient's cell phone

Without any consent, a provider may still call or text a patient's cell phone if the message is free to the patient and meets every condition in § 64.1200(a)(9)(iv):

• Sent only to the wireless number the patient provided, naming the provider with contact details.
• Only for “appointment and exam confirmations and reminders, wellness checkups, hospital pre-registration instructions, pre-operative instructions, lab results, post-discharge follow-up intended to prevent readmission, prescription notifications, and home healthcare instructions”.
• No telemarketing, and no “accounting, billing, debt-collection, or other financial content”.
• About one minute per call or 160 characters per text; one message a day, at most three a week, per patient.
• An easy opt-out in every message, STOP for texts, honoured immediately.

In plain terms: a purchase in the last 18 months or an inquiry in the last 3 months. Two limits come with it. A do-not-call request to you ends the relationship “even if the subscriber continues to do business with the seller”, and it does not extend to an affiliate unless the customer “would reasonably expect them to be included” (§ 64.1200(f)(5)(i)–(ii)).

The states disagree

Florida leaves calls “to a person with whom the telephone solicitor has a prior or existing business relationship” out of its “unsolicited” calls (Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(k)), and its automated-call rule reaches only unsolicited ones ((8)(a)). Oklahoma exempts from its whole act anyone soliciting customers “who have an existing business relationship with or who have previously purchased from” the business (15 O.S. § 775C.5(20)). Maryland has no general business-relationship exemption for its written-consent rule, only a narrow one for an informational call that turns into a sale at the customer's request (Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-4502(a)(1)(vi)). Federal law still applies on top of all three.

The cell phone rule covers “any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service” and similar services (§ 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)), whoever pays the bill. An autodialed or prerecorded marketing text to a sales manager's company mobile needs written consent like one to a consumer. And on the registry, the FCC will “presume wireless subscribers who ask to be put on the national do-not-call list to be residential subscribers” (para. 36), so a sole trader's registered mobile is treated as a home line. Some states go the other way: Maryland exempts “a business–to–business sale where the telephone solicitor has been lawfully operating continuously for at least 3 years under the same business name” from its written-consent rule (§ 14-4502(a)(1)(iii)). The FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule keeps its own list, including most calls between a telemarketer and a business (16 CFR § 310.6(b)(7)), compared in Telemarketing Sales Rule vs TCPA.

The Navy's marketing contractor in that case got no such shelter. The Court held that “no ‘derivative immunity’ shields the contractor” when it violates both federal law and the government's instructions; the Navy had authorized texts only to people who had opted in. The FCC first went further: in 2016 it read “person” in § 227(b)(1) to exclude “the federal government or agents acting within the scope of their agency” (FCC 16-72, para. 10). It reversed that in 2020:

The same order holds that local governments are not sovereign in this sense and are covered. A contractor can still argue derivative immunity, but the FCC left that for courts to decide case by case (para. 15).

The federal-debt exception is gone

In 2015 Congress let robocalls to cell phones go out without consent if “made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States”. In Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, decided 2020-07-06, the Supreme Court held that the exception favoured debt-collection speech over political speech and struck it: “We cure that constitutional violation by invalidating the 2015 government-debt exception and severing it from the remainder of the statute.” The exception had covered, in the Court's words, “robocalls made to collect many student loan and mortgage debts.” Its words are still printed in the 2023 edition of the U.S. Code, so read the statute with the opinion beside it: a servicer robocalling a cell phone about a federal debt needs consent like anyone else.

Four kinds of caller qualify, each with its own list of conditions, and all of them forbid marketing content:

• Package delivery companies: one notice per package (plus one per missed signature-required delivery, up to two), sent only to the recipient's number, naming the company, about one minute or 160 characters, with STOP for texts and opt-outs honoured within 6 business days (§ 64.1200(a)(9)(i)).
• Financial institutions: only for fraud or identity-theft risk, data breaches, steps to prevent harm, and pending money transfers; at most three messages per event over three days; no debt collection; opt-outs honoured immediately ((a)(9)(iii)).
• Health care providers: the patient messages set out in the health care section above ((a)(9)(iv)).
• Inmate collect-call providers: up to three notices after a failed collect call ((a)(9)(ii)).

So an autodialed or prerecorded campaign call or text to a cell phone needs prior express consent. To a home line, a non-commercial prerecorded call needs no consent if the caller makes “no more than three calls within any consecutive 30-day period” and honours opt-outs (§ 64.1200(a)(3)(ii)), and every prerecorded message must name who is responsible for it at the start (§ 64.1200(b)(1)). Oklahoma exempts “a person soliciting for religious, charitable, political, or educational purposes” from its act (15 O.S. § 775C.5(2)); Maryland exempts non-commercial political solicitation only for a nonprofit registered with its Secretary of State and tax-exempt under § 501(c)(3), (4) or (6) (§ 14-4502(a)(2)).

Before you rely on any exemption

Name the rule it belongs to, check every condition it carries, and keep the record that proves each one: the purchase date behind a business relationship, the signed form behind written consent, the zero-rated route behind a free-to-recipient text. Then check the state you are calling into. The TCPA compliance checklist walks the whole set, and the penalty estimator shows what a wrong guess costs. This page explains the rules; it is not legal advice.

1. 47 CFR § 64.1200, Delivery restrictions (eCFR, current as of 2026-10-20)fetched 2026-10-22
2. 47 U.S.C. § 227, Restrictions on use of telephone equipment (govinfo, 2023 edition)fetched 2026-10-22
3. Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., No. 19-631 (U.S. July 6, 2020), slip opinionfetched 2026-10-22
4. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016) (Library of Congress, U.S. Reports)fetched 2026-10-22
5. FCC, Report and Order FCC 03-153 (released July 3, 2003), paras. 36-37 and 128fetched 2026-10-22
6. FCC, Cargo Airline Association Order, FCC 14-32 (adopted and released March 27, 2014)fetched 2026-10-22
7. FCC, Declaratory Ruling and Order FCC 15-72 (adopted June 18, 2015; released July 10, 2015)fetched 2026-10-22
8. FCC, Broadnet Declaratory Ruling, FCC 16-72 (adopted June 8, 2016; released July 5, 2016)fetched 2026-10-22
9. FCC, Broadnet Order on Reconsideration, FCC 20-182 (adopted December 9, 2020; released December 14, 2020)fetched 2026-10-22
10. 16 CFR § 310.6, Telemarketing Sales Rule exemptions (eCFR, current as of 2026-10-20)fetched 2026-10-22
11. Florida, Fla. Stat. § 501.059 (Florida Telephone Solicitation Act)fetched 2026-10-22
12. Oklahoma, 15 O.S. § 775C.5, exemptions (Title 15, complete text)fetched 2026-10-22
13. Maryland, Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-4502fetched 2026-10-22