Massachusetts Telemarketing and Robocall Laws: Statutes, Rules, and How They Differ from the TCPA

Overview

Massachusetts regulates telemarketing mainly through the Massachusetts Telemarketing Solicitation Act (MTSA), M.G.L. c. 159C, and its regulations at 201 CMR 12.00, which are administered by the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (OCABR). The MTSA bans unsolicited telephonic sales calls in four situations:

• to consumers listed on the Massachusetts Do Not Call Registry
• between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
• by fax
• "by use of a recorded message device"

Massachusetts also requires telephone solicitors to register with OCABR every year and buy the state list, which costs $1,100 a year according to OCABR. Disclosures are required within the first minute of the call, and caller ID blocking is prohibited.

The MTSA gives consumers a private right of action. A person who receives more than one unlawful call in 12 months from or for the same entity may recover actual monetary loss or up to $5,000 per knowing violation, whichever is greater, along with mandatory fee shifting for the prevailing party. The Attorney General can seek civil penalties of up to $5,000 per knowing violation, with a $1,500 minimum when the consumer is 65 or older. Claims must be brought within three years of when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the violation.

Older provisions of the telephone regulation chapter, M.G.L. c. 159, §§ 19B to 19E, address automatic dialing systems and require opening disclosures on residential sales calls. The Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L. c. 93A, and the three-day cancellation statute, M.G.L. c. 93, § 48, round out the picture.

Key statutes and regulations

Detailed provisions

1. Who is covered

A "telephone solicitor" is any individual or business entity, "or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof, doing business in the commonwealth who makes or causes to be made a telephonic sales call" (M.G.L. c. 159C, § 1). "Doing business in the commonwealth" includes calls "from a location outside of the commonwealth to consumers in the commonwealth." A "consumer" is "an individual who is a resident of the commonwealth and a prospective recipient of consumer goods or services."

The central definition is "marketing or sales solicitation":

'"Marketing or sales solicitation"', the initiation of a telephone call or message to encourage the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods or services, that is transmitted to a consumer, but not including a telephone call or message: (i) to a consumer with that consumer's prior express written or verbal invitation or permission; (ii) by a tax-exempt nonprofit organization; (iii) by an individual or organization for a noncommercial purpose, such as a poll or survey; or (iv) to a consumer in response to a visit made by such consumer to an establishment selling, leasing or exchanging consumer goods or services at a fixed location.

A "telephonic sales call" is a call to a consumer to engage in a marketing or sales solicitation, to solicit an extension of credit, or to obtain information for those purposes (M.G.L. c. 159C, § 1). "Consumer goods or services" expressly include "stocks, bonds, mutual funds, annuities and other financial products."

Unsolicited calls and exemptions. The operative prohibitions apply to an "unsolicited telephonic sales call." That term excludes calls:

• "in response to an express written or verbal request of the consumer called"
• "primarily in connection with an existing debt or contract, payment or performance of which has not been completed at the time of the call"
• "to an existing customer unless such customer has stated to the telephone solicitor that such customer no longer wishes to receive the telephonic sales calls of such telephone solicitor"
• where the sale is not completed, and payment is not required, until after a face-to-face presentation or meeting (M.G.L. c. 159C, § 1)

An "existing customer" is "a residential telephone subscriber with whom the person or entity making a telephonic sales call has maintained an account or had a business relationship within the previous 24 months."

2. Do not call registry

M.G.L. c. 159C, § 2 directs OCABR to "establish and maintain a no sales solicitation calls listing of consumers who do not wish to receive unsolicited telephonic sales calls." OCABR must "update such listing not less than quarterly" and make it available "for a fee as the office shall prescribe." Section 7 requires OCABR to include the Massachusetts portion of any FCC national database. Under 201 CMR 12.03, OCABR includes Massachusetts consumers enrolled in a national do not call database maintained by a federal agency. A listing does not expire until the consumer asks to be removed or changes numbers.

The core prohibition is M.G.L. c. 159C, § 3:

A telephone solicitor shall not make or cause to be made an unsolicited telephonic sales call to a consumer: (i) if the consumer's name and telephone number appear on the then current quarterly no sales solicitation calls listing made available by the office under section 2; (ii) to be received between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., local time, at the consumer's location; (iii) in the form of electronically transmitted facsimiles; or (iv) by use of a recorded message device.

Under 201 CMR 12.05, enrollment takes effect 60 days after the consumer's listing first appears in a quarterly registry, and business telephone subscribers may not enroll. OCABR's public guidance tells residents that both home and cell phone numbers may be added to the state registry at no cost, and that it may take up to 90 days after signup for unsolicited sales calls to stop. In Doane v. Python Leads, LLC (D. Mass. 2025), discussed below, a federal court held that allegations of repeated calls to a cellphone listed on the state registry stated a claim under § 3.

List compilers. M.G.L. c. 159C, § 5(a) requires anyone who compiles and sells consumer contact lists to telephone solicitors to exclude numbers on the current quarterly listing. Telephone directory publishers are exempt (§ 5(b)). Information in the listing "shall be used only for the purposes of compliance with this chapter or in a proceeding or action under section 8" and is not public (M.G.L. c. 159C, § 11).

3. Registration and fees

The statute authorizes OCABR to set access rules and fees (M.G.L. c. 159C, §§ 2, 6). Under 201 CMR 12.04, every telephone solicitor making unsolicited telephonic sales calls to Massachusetts consumers must register annually with OCABR by January 1. The application must include the solicitor's names, address, agent for service of process, and an officer's statement affirming compliance. The solicitor must also pay an annual registration fee covering the calendar year and must have an approved registration before soliciting any Massachusetts consumer. OCABR states that solicitors pay a $1,100 annual fee for the emailed list and receive quarterly updates on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. No bond is required.

4. Calling hours

Unsolicited telephonic sales calls may not be "received between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., local time, at the consumer's location" (M.G.L. c. 159C, § 3(ii)). That cuts an hour off the federal evening limit of 9 p.m. Massachusetts has no Sunday or holiday restriction and no statutory frequency cap for live calls. The hours rule applies only to "unsolicited" calls, so calls to existing customers or at the consumer's request are governed by federal limits.

5. Recorded messages and autodialers

Recorded message ban. The MTSA prohibits any unsolicited telephonic sales call "by use of a recorded message device" (M.G.L. c. 159C, § 3(iv)). The ban has no consent mechanism of its own. A call made with the consumer's "prior express written or verbal invitation or permission" is not a "marketing or sales solicitation" at all (M.G.L. c. 159C, § 1). Because the statute accepts verbal permission, it is looser in form than the federal requirement of prior express written consent for prerecorded telemarketing calls. Federal law still applies, so prerecorded telemarketing to Massachusetts consumers needs federal written consent.

Automatic telephone dialing systems. M.G.L. c. 159, § 19B defines the term for purposes of §§ 19C and 19D:

'"Automatic telephone dialing system"', any automatic terminal equipment which is capable of storing numbers to be called or producing numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and with the ability to call such numbers, and which is capable of delivering a prerecorded message to the number called with or without manual assistance.

This definition tracks the federal "random or sequential number generator" language that the Supreme Court construed narrowly in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021). It adds a requirement that the equipment be capable of delivering a prerecorded message. Under § 19C, customers may notify their local carrier that they do not wish to receive automatic dialing calls. Section 19D then provides that "Any person using an automatic telephone dialing system shall prevent such system from selecting or dialing any telephone numbers listed pursuant to said section nineteen C." Section 19D also requires that any system used in Massachusetts be operated so that it will, "within five seconds after the called party hangs up, automatically create a disconnect signal or on-hook condition which allows the called party's line to be released." That matches the federal 5-second release rule. The carrier-based objection lists under § 19C have largely been overtaken by the MTSA registry.

6. Text messages

The MTSA defines a marketing or sales solicitation as "the initiation of a telephone call or message," and that wording can be read to include text messages. The operative prohibitions, however, speak of a "telephonic sales call." No Massachusetts appellate decision on whether marketing texts are covered was located. Plaintiffs routinely plead MTSA claims for texts alongside federal TCPA claims, under which the FCC treats texts as calls. A 2025 bill that would have expressly covered robocalls and texts to mobile devices (H.363) was sent to a study order in February 2026 and was not enacted.

7. Caller ID

M.G.L. c. 159C, § 4 provides:

No telephone solicitor shall intentionally cause to be installed or shall intentionally use a blocking device or service to circumvent a consumer's use of a call identification service or device.

201 CMR 12.02(5) restates the rule. Massachusetts has no separate anti-spoofing statute. In Doane v. Python Leads, the court treated allegations that a caller "used spoofing and other means to hide its true identity and telephone number" as sufficient to state a § 4 claim. Federal law adds a duty to transmit caller ID under the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The TSR prohibits "Failing to transmit or cause to be transmitted the telephone number, and, when made available by the telemarketer 's carrier, the name of the telemarketer , to any caller identification service in use by a recipient of a telemarketing call." The federal Truth in Caller ID Act bars spoofing with intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.

8. Disclosures

M.G.L. c. 159C, § 5A(a) requires disclosures early in every telephonic sales call:

A telephone solicitor shall disclose all of the following information within the first minute of a telephonic sales call and before requesting, accepting or arranging for payment by a consumer: (i) that the purpose of the telephone call is to make a sale or solicit funds; (ii) the correct name of the telemarketing company that employs the individual telemarketer who is making the call; (iii) the correct name of the ultimate seller whose goods or services are being offered by means of the telemarketing call; and (iv) a complete and accurate description of the goods or services being offered including, but not limited to, the retail market value of the goods or services.

Before taking payment, the telemarketer must also disclose:

• total cost, including taxes and shipping
• restrictions and conditions
• "the complete terms of any applicable refund, return, cancellation, exchange or repurchase policies"
• material aspects of any investment, "and the fact that an investor may lose some or all of their original investment" (M.G.L. c. 159C, § 5A(b))

The requirement to state the "retail market value" of the goods and to name both the telemarketing company and the seller goes beyond the TSR.

M.G.L. c. 159, § 19E adds a separate rule for sales calls to a residence. The caller must reveal "at the time the person initially contacts the prospective buyer, and before making any other statement, except a greeting," that the purpose is to effect a sale, by stating the caller's identity, the trade name of the person represented, and the kind of goods or services offered. Section 19E also bars "any plan, scheme, or ruse which misrepresents his true status or mission."

9. Contracts and cancellation

Massachusetts has no telemarketing-specific written contract statute. M.G.L. c. 93, § 48 gives a buyer a three-business-day cancellation right for consumer agreements over $25 that are "consummated by a party thereto at a place other than the address of the seller or lessor." Each agreement must be in writing and include a cancellation notice in at least 10-point boldface type. The seller must refund payments within 10 business days of cancellation. Whether a sale closed by telephone with a consumer at home is "consummated" away from the seller's address depends on the facts. No controlling decision applying § 48 to purely telephonic sales was located. Federal TSR protections against unauthorized billing and the FTC's Cooling-Off Rule apply independently.

10. Exemptions summary

Calls are outside the MTSA's restrictions if they are:

• made with the consumer's prior express written or verbal invitation or permission
• made by a tax-exempt nonprofit organization
• noncommercial, such as polls or surveys
• in response to the consumer's visit to a fixed retail location
• at the consumer's express request
• primarily about an existing debt or incomplete contract
• to an existing customer within 24 months, unless the customer has opted out
• part of a sale completed only after a face-to-face meeting (M.G.L. c. 159C, § 1)

The nonprofit exemption covers calls "by" the organization. Whether it extends to for-profit telemarketers calling on a charity's behalf is not addressed in the statute.

11. Private right of action, damages, fees and limitations

M.G.L. c. 159C, § 8(b) provides:

A person who has received more than 1 unsolicited telephonic sales call within a 12-month period by or on behalf of the same person or entity in violation of this chapter may: (i) bring an action to enjoin the violation; (2) bring an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such knowing violation or to receive not more than $5,000 in damages for such knowing violation, whichever is greater; or (iii) bring both such actions.

Three features stand out. First, the plaintiff must have received more than one violating call within 12 months from or on behalf of the same person or entity. That threshold resembles the federal 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) requirement of more than one call in 12 months. Second, damages are tied to a "knowing violation," and the $5,000 figure is a ceiling ("not more than"), which suggests the amount is set case by case; no appellate decision explaining how it is measured was located. Third, fee shifting applies to both sides: "the prevailing party, after judgment in the trial court and exhaustion of all appeals, if any, shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs from the nonprevailing party" (M.G.L. c. 159C, § 8(c)). On the plain text, a plaintiff who loses may owe the defendant's fees, although no decision applying the provision against a plaintiff was located.

Defense. "It shall be a defense in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to this chapter that the defendant has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent unsolicited telephonic sales calls in violation of this chapter" (M.G.L. c. 159C, § 9).

Limitations. Under M.G.L. c. 159C, § 10, no action may be brought "more than 3 years after the person bringing the action knew or should have known of the occurrence of the alleged violation," or more than three years after the end of a related Commonwealth proceeding, whichever is later. Chapter 93A claims carry a four-year period: they "shall be commenced only within four years next after the cause of action accrues" (M.G.L. c. 260, § 5A).

Jurisdiction and cumulative remedies. "A court of the commonwealth may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident or his executor or administrator as to an action or proceeding authorized by this chapter" (M.G.L. c. 159C, § 12). The MTSA's remedies are "in addition to all other causes of action, remedies and penalties provided by law, including any applicable remedies pursuant to chapter 93A" (M.G.L. c. 159C, § 13).

Chapter 93A. A consumer injured by an unfair or deceptive practice may recover "the amount of actual damages or twenty-five dollars, whichever is greater; or up to three but not less than two times such amount if the court finds that the use or employment of the act or practice was a willful or knowing violation." A written demand for relief must be sent at least thirty days before filing (M.G.L. c. 93A, § 9(3)). Class actions are expressly authorized (M.G.L. c. 93A, § 9(2)). Federal courts in Massachusetts have dismissed 93A claims that rested only on TCPA or MTSA violations that were themselves dismissed, as in Doane v. Benefytt Technologies, Inc. (D. Mass. 2023).

12. Attorney General enforcement

M.G.L. c. 159C, § 8(a) provides:

The attorney general may initiate proceedings relating to a knowing violation or threatened knowing violation of this chapter. Such proceedings may include, without limitation, an injunction, a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each knowing violation, but not less than $1,500 for a knowing violation involving a consumer who is 65 years of age or older, and additional relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.

The Attorney General may also issue investigative demands and subpoenas. Under 201 CMR 12.07, the Attorney General is empowered to investigate and prosecute MTSA violations. Under Chapter 93A, the Attorney General may obtain "a civil penalty of not more than five thousand dollars for each such violation" when the defendant knew or should have known its conduct was unlawful, plus restitution and the costs of investigation and litigation (M.G.L. c. 93A, § 4).

How Massachusetts law differs from federal law

Where Massachusetts is stricter. Massachusetts requires annual state registration and a paid state list. It ends calling at 8 p.m., bans recorded message devices for unsolicited sales calls outright, and requires more detailed first-minute disclosures. Its private remedy allows up to $5,000 per knowing violation, the Attorney General can seek a $1,500 minimum penalty for violations involving seniors, and its long-arm provision expressly reaches nonresidents.

Where Massachusetts is looser. The existing customer exemption lasts 24 months, longer than the federal 18-month and 3-month periods. A state listing takes effect 60 days after quarterly publication. Verbal permission removes a call from the definition of solicitation. The MTSA limitations period is three years instead of four, and plaintiffs face two-way fee shifting.

Where Massachusetts is the same. The autodialer definition uses the federal generator language, the disconnect rule is 5 seconds, tax-exempt nonprofits are outside the do not call rules, and the private action is triggered by more than one call in 12 months.

Notable enforcement and case law

Doane v. Python Leads, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-12947-JEK (D. Mass. Dec. 4, 2025). Doane v. Python Leads (D. Mass. 2025) The court denied an individual owner-officer's motions to dismiss TCPA, MTSA, and Chapter 93A claims. On personal jurisdiction, it noted that under the MTSA, "[a] court of the commonwealth may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident . . . as to an action or proceeding authorized by this chapter." On the merits, it held that allegations of 23 calls to a cellphone listed on the Massachusetts registry, with spoofed caller ID, "are sufficient to state a claim against Levine under Sections 3 and 4 of the MTSA, given her alleged control and oversight of Python." The court relied on the statutory definition of a telephone solicitor as one who "makes or causes to be made" a telephonic sales call. It also held that the same allegations stated a Chapter 93A claim.

Doane v. Benefytt Technologies, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-10510-FDS (D. Mass. Mar. 10, 2023). Doane v. Benefytt Technologies (D. Mass. 2023) The court applied the three-year limitations period in M.G.L. c. 159C, § 10, under which claims must be brought within three years "after the person bringing the action knew or should have known of the occurrence of the alleged violation." The complaint showed that the plaintiff knew of the harm and its source by June 19, 2018. Even with the Supreme Judicial Court's 106-day COVID-19 tolling order, the period expired before the parties' later tolling agreement, which "could not revive a claim if the limitations period had already expired." The MTSA claim was dismissed as time-barred. A Chapter 93A claim premised on the dismissed TCPA and MTSA claims was dismissed as well. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss all counts and dismissed the claims against an individual defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

No Supreme Judicial Court or Appeals Court decision construing the MTSA's damages provision or its application to text messages was located.

Recent amendments

• No amendment to M.G.L. c. 159C, c. 159, §§ 19B to 19E, or 201 CMR 12.00 enacted from 2023 through 2026 was identified. The regulation page lists 201 CMR 12.00 with a date of October 18, 2017.
• Bills not enacted. H.363 (194th General Court, 2025 to 2026) would have added sections 15 to 17 to c. 159C. Those sections would have banned robocalls to mobile devices and raised penalties. On February 11, 2026, the bill was accompanied by a study order (H5080). H.4812, which would restrict telemarketers' use of telephone numbers not tied to a Massachusetts business location, was reported favorably on December 8, 2025 and referred to House Ways and Means.

Compliance checklist

• Register with OCABR as a telephone solicitor by January 1 of each year, pay the registration and list fees, and get approval before calling Massachusetts consumers.
• Load each quarterly Massachusetts list (January 1, April 1, July 1, October 1) and the national registry. Suppress landline and cell numbers on either list.
• End unsolicited sales calls at 8:00 p.m. local time, and do not start before 8:00 a.m.
• Do not use recorded message devices or fax for unsolicited sales calls. For any prerecorded campaign, obtain prior express written consent meeting the federal standard.
• Script the first minute to state the sales purpose, the telemarketing company, the ultimate seller, and a complete description of the offer with retail market value. Before payment, give total cost, conditions, and refund terms.
• Transmit accurate caller ID, and never block or spoof it.
• Treat existing customer status as lapsing after 24 months for state purposes (18 months or 3 months under federal rules), and honor opt-outs immediately.
• Keep written do not call procedures and training records to support the c. 159C, § 9 due care defense.
• Respond carefully to Chapter 93A demand letters within 30 days. A reasonable written tender can cap exposure.

References

• M.G.L. c. 159C, § 1, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159C/Section1
• M.G.L. c. 159C, § 2, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159C/Section2
• M.G.L. c. 159C, § 3, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159C/Section3
• M.G.L. c. 159C, § 4, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159C/Section4
• M.G.L. c. 159C, § 5, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159C/Section5
• M.G.L. c. 159C, § 5A, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159C/Section5A
• M.G.L. c. 159C, § 7, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159C/Section7
• M.G.L. c. 159C, § 8, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159C/Section8
• M.G.L. c. 159C, § 9, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159C/Section9
• M.G.L. c. 159C, § 10, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159C/Section10
• M.G.L. c. 159C, § 11, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159C/Section11
• M.G.L. c. 159C, § 12, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159C/Section12
• M.G.L. c. 159C, § 13, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159C/Section13
• M.G.L. c. 159, § 19B, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159/Section19B
• M.G.L. c. 159, § 19C, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159/Section19C
• M.G.L. c. 159, § 19D, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159/Section19D
• M.G.L. c. 159, § 19E, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159/Section19E
• M.G.L. c. 93, § 48, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter93/Section48
• M.G.L. c. 93A, § 2, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter93A/Section2
• M.G.L. c. 93A, § 4, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter93A/Section4
• M.G.L. c. 93A, § 9, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter93A/Section9
• M.G.L. c. 260, § 5A, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleV/Chapter260/Section5A
• 201 CMR 12.00, https://www.mass.gov/regulations/201-CMR-1200-massachusetts-do-not-call-registry
• OCABR, Do Not Call Registry for Residents and Businesses, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/do-not-call-registry-for-residents-and-businesses
• H.363 (194th General Court), https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H363
• H.4812 (194th General Court), https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H4812
• Doane v. Python Leads, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-12947 (D. Mass. 2025), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_24-cv-12947/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_24-cv-12947-0.pdf
• Doane v. Benefytt Technologies, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-10510 (D. Mass. 2023), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_22-cv-10510/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_22-cv-10510-0.pdf
• 47 U.S.C. § 227, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227
• 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/64.1200
• 16 C.F.R. § 310.4, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/310.4

This page summarizes state law for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. Statutes change; confirm current text with the official source before relying on it.