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

Overview

Minnesota regulates telemarketing mainly through its automatic dialing-announcing device (ADAD) law, Minnesota Statutes sections 325E.26 to 325E.31. Enacted in 1987, it reaches further than the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227, in several respects:

• Every caller is covered. The ADAD law applies to every "caller," whether the call is commercial, political, charitable, or informational.
• Consent or a live operator first. A prerecorded or synthesized voice message may not be played unless the subscriber has consented or a live operator first gets the subscriber's consent.
• Residences and businesses alike. The statute protects business lines as well as homes.
• Shorter calling window. Both ADAD calls and live commercial telephone solicitations are barred before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m., an hour shorter at the start of the day than the federal 8:00 a.m. limit.

Minnesota had a state do not call law, the Telephone Solicitation Regulation Act (sections 325E.311 to 325E.316). Those sections expired on December 31, 2012, and Minnesota now has no state do not call list. Telemarketers calling Minnesota numbers must still follow the National Do Not Call Registry rules of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Other Minnesota laws that matter for telephone sales:

• Personal solicitation disclosure law (sections 325G.12 to 325G.14). It requires telephone sellers to identify themselves and their purpose before asking any questions.
• Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (sections 325F.68 to 325F.70).
• Deceptive Trade Practices Act (section 325D.44).
• Attorney General's general enforcement statute (section 8.31). It supplies both the public enforcement tools and the private right of action for most of these laws.

In 2023 the Legislature added a separate civil penalty of up to $50,000 for ADAD violations, recoverable by the Minnesota Attorney General's Office.

Federal courts have twice upheld the ADAD law against First Amendment challenges brought by political callers, and have held that the TCPA does not preempt it. Because the ADAD law defines its device by whether it "selects and dials telephone numbers" and plays a recorded message, the analysis of what counts as a covered device differs from the federal automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) analysis under Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021).

Key statutes

Detailed provisions

1. Who and what the ADAD law covers

The ADAD law turns on four defined terms in section 325E.26.

Automatic dialing-announcing device. The device is defined by two functions, dialing and playing a message:

"Automatic dialing-announcing device" means a device that selects and dials telephone numbers and that, working alone or in conjunction with other equipment, disseminates a prerecorded or synthesized voice message to the telephone number called.

Caller. The definition is broad and is not limited to sellers:

"Caller" means a person, corporation, firm, partnership, association, or legal or commercial entity who attempts to contact, or who contacts, a subscriber in this state by using a telephone or a telephone line.

Message. "Message" means "any call, regardless of its content." Because of this definition, the consent rule in section 325E.27 applies to political, survey, charitable, and informational recorded calls as well as sales calls.

Subscriber. "Subscriber" means "a person who has subscribed to telephone service from a telephone company or the other persons living or residing with the subscribing person." The definition does not say "residential." In Van Bergen v. Minnesota, the Eighth Circuit described the Minnesota statute as one that "applies to calls to both residences and businesses, whereas the TCPA applies only to residences and specified businesses, such as hospitals." Whether a wireless carrier is a "telephone company" for this definition is not addressed in the text. Smith v. Securus Technologies, Inc., discussed below, involved calls to cell phones but was decided on other grounds, and no Minnesota appellate decision settling the point was located.

Commercial telephone solicitation. This narrower term matters only for the calling hours rule in section 325E.30:

"Commercial telephone solicitation" means any unsolicited call to a residential subscriber when the person initiating the call has not had a prior business or personal relationship with the subscriber, and when the purpose of the call is to solicit the purchase or the consideration of purchase of goods or services by the subscriber.

The definition excludes calls by organizations listed in Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 290.21, subdivision 3, clauses (a) to (e), which lists certain charitable and public entities.

2. Do not call

Minnesota has no state do not call list in force today. The Telephone Solicitation Regulation Act, sections 325E.311 to 325E.316, was enacted in 2002. In 2009 the Legislature added an expiration clause, Laws 2009, chapter 178, article 1, section 61, which reads: "Sections 325E.311 to 325E.316 expire December 31, 2012." The Revisor of Statutes now lists each of those sections as expired under that 2009 provision. The expiration clause itself, codified as section 325E.3161, was repealed in 2013 (Laws 2013, chapter 125, article 1, section 108).

As a result, do not call compliance for calls to Minnesota numbers is governed by federal law:

• FCC rule. It bars telephone solicitations to a residential subscriber who has registered on the "do-not-call registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the Federal Government."
• Company-specific lists. Callers must keep internal do not call lists, and a caller "must honor a residential subscriber's do-not-call request within a reasonable time from the date such request is made."
• FTC rule. The Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 C.F.R. Part 310, imposes parallel registry obligations on sellers and telemarketers.

Minnesota's general consumer protection statutes still apply to a do not call violation that also involves deception. The ADAD consent rule independently restricts recorded calls whether or not a number is registered.

3. Registration and bonding

Minnesota has no general telemarketer registration or bonding requirement. No statute among those reviewed requires a seller to register with the state before placing telephone solicitations. Separate licensing regimes apply to particular industries, such as insurance and charitable solicitation, but they are outside the scope of this page.

4. Calling hours and frequency

Section 325E.30 sets one time limit for two kinds of calls:

A caller shall not use an automatic dialing-announcing device nor make any commercial telephone solicitation before 9:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m.

The ADAD part applies to every recorded message call, whatever its content. The commercial telephone solicitation part applies to live sales calls to residential subscribers with no prior business or personal relationship. In Van Bergen, the court explained that section 325E.30 "additionally prohibits any commercial solicitation, whether live or by ADAD, during those same hours."

The exemptions in section 325E.27(b) also cover the hours rule. The statute says "This section and section 325E.30 do not apply to" school district messages, messages to subscribers with a current business or personal relationship, and work schedule messages.

The federal rule bars telephone solicitations "before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location)." Minnesota's window therefore opens one hour later. The Minnesota statute does not say whose local time applies. Minnesota lies in one time zone, so the question arises mainly for callers outside Minnesota calling Minnesota numbers. The cautious practice is to use the subscriber's local time.

Minnesota sets no numeric limit on how often a caller may call the same number.

5. Recorded messages, autodialers, and the Duguid comparison

The core rule is section 325E.27(a):

A caller shall not use or connect to a telephone line an automatic dialing-announcing device unless: (1) the subscriber has knowingly or voluntarily requested, consented to, permitted, or authorized receipt of the message; or (2) the message is immediately preceded by a live operator who obtains the subscriber's consent before the message is delivered.

Exemptions. Section 325E.27(b) lists four:

This section and section 325E.30 do not apply to (1) messages from school districts to students, parents, or employees, (2) messages to subscribers with whom the caller has a current business or personal relationship, or (3) messages advising employees of work schedules.

The fourth, added in 2009, provides that the section "does not apply to messages from a nonprofit tax-exempt charitable organization sent solely for the purpose of soliciting voluntary donations of clothing to benefit disabled United States military veterans and containing no request for monetary donations or other solicitations of any kind." In Gresham v. Swanson, the Eighth Circuit treated this exception as content based and held it severable. It did not decide whether the exception is itself valid.

Live operator disclosures. When a live operator introduces the message, section 325E.29 requires the operator to disclose, at the outset:

• "the name of the business, firm, organization, association, partnership, or entity for which the message is being made"
• "the purpose of the message"
• "the identity or kinds of goods or services the message is promoting"
• "if applicable, the fact that the message intends to solicit payment or commitment of funds"

Disconnect. Section 325E.28 provides: "A caller shall not use an automatic dialing-announcing device unless the device is designed and operated so as to disconnect within ten seconds after termination of the telephone call by the subscriber." Federal law requires that automated systems "release the called party's line within 5 seconds of the time notification is transmitted to the system that the called party has hung up." The federal standard is stricter on timing.

How the ADAD definition compares with the federal ATDS after Duguid. The TCPA restricts two things: calls made using an ATDS, and calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice. In Duguid, the Supreme Court held that equipment qualifies as an ATDS only if it can store or produce numbers using a random or sequential number generator. Since Duguid, federal autodialer claims often turn on how numbers are generated. Federal prerecorded voice claims do not depend on the dialing technology at all.

Minnesota's ADAD definition combines the two federal ideas into a single device that "selects and dials telephone numbers" and also "disseminates a prerecorded or synthesized voice message." Several consequences follow:

• Live calls from an autodialer are outside the ADAD law. A predictive dialer that connects calls to live agents plays no recorded message, so the ADAD law does not apply to it. The calling hours rule may still apply to the call as a commercial telephone solicitation.
• No random or sequential number generator test. The definition does not refer to random or sequential number generation, so Duguid's narrowing of the federal ATDS definition does not carry over directly. A device that dials numbers from a customer list and plays a recording appears to satisfy the statutory words "selects and dials." No Minnesota appellate decision applying Duguid to section 325E.26 was located.
• Human dialing defeats the claim. In Smith v. Securus Technologies, Inc., the District of Minnesota held that a system that does not itself dial the number is not an ADAD. The court found the ADAD claim failed because "there is no dispute of material fact that Securus's device did not select and dial Plaintiffs' cell phone numbers." It reasoned that "under both federal and state law, in order for Defendant to be liable, it must have affirmatively caused the call to exist by selecting and dialing the recipients' telephone numbers."

Consent. The Minnesota consent standard ("knowingly or voluntarily requested, consented to, permitted, or authorized") does not require a writing. Federal rules require "prior express written consent" for telemarketing calls using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice to wireless numbers. For residential lines, the FCC rule bars a call "using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message that includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing without the prior express written consent of the called party." A caller with federal written consent will ordinarily also satisfy Minnesota's consent standard. A caller relying only on Minnesota's looser standard may still violate federal law.

Minnesota also offers a path the TCPA does not have: a live operator who obtains consent before the recording plays. The federal rules treat a call that plays a prerecorded telemarketing message as a prerecorded call regardless of how it began, so the Minnesota live operator path does not by itself satisfy federal consent requirements.

6. Text messages

The ADAD law covers devices that disseminate "a prerecorded or synthesized voice message." A text message is not a voice message, and no Minnesota statute reviewed for this page expressly regulates marketing texts. Federal law applies: the FCC treats texts as calls for purposes of the TCPA's autodialer restriction, and the federal do not call rules reach marketing texts to wireless numbers. Minnesota's consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices statutes would reach deceptive content in a text.

7. Caller ID

Minnesota has no statute among those reviewed that requires telemarketers to transmit caller ID or that prohibits caller ID spoofing. A 2019 bill on caller ID blocking in commercial telephone solicitations, H.F. 639, was not enacted. Federal law governs:

• Truth in Caller ID Act. 47 U.S.C. 227(e) prohibits transmitting misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.
• Telemarketer caller ID. The FCC and FTC rules require telemarketers to transmit caller ID information.

8. Disclosures and prohibited practices

Seller identification. Section 325G.13 imposes an up-front disclosure duty on any "personal solicitation." Section 325G.12, subd. 2 defines that term to include a seller who "contacts the buyer by telephone or in person other than at the place of business of the seller." The rule:

Before any personal solicitation every seller shall, at the time of initial contact or communication with the potential buyer, clearly and expressly disclose: the individual seller's name, the name of the business firm or organization the seller represents, the identity or kinds of goods or services the seller wishes to demonstrate or sell, and that the seller wishes to demonstrate or sell the identified goods or services.

The timing is strict: "The disclosures required by this section shall be made before asking any questions or making any statements except an initial greeting." The statute exempts nonprofit organizations. It also excludes from "personal solicitation":

• calls where the buyer already knows the seller's identity, business, and goods or services
• calls where "the buyer has initiated the contact with the seller"
• newspaper subscription sales by minors who also deliver the paper

Violations are subject to the remedies of section 8.31 under section 325G.14.

The federal TSR requires similar prompt oral disclosures in outbound telemarketing calls: the seller's identity, that the purpose is to sell, the nature of the goods or services, and prize promotion information. Minnesota's rule adds the individual seller's own name and the express "before asking any questions" timing.

Deceptive and unfair practices. Section 325F.69, subd. 1 makes enjoinable:

The act, use, or employment by any person of any fraud, unfair or unconscionable practice, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that others rely thereon in connection with the sale of any merchandise, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged thereby

The "unfair or unconscionable practice" language was added in 2023. Subdivision 8 now defines an unfair or unconscionable practice as one that "(1) offends public policy as established by the statutes, rules, or common law of Minnesota; (2) is unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; or (3) is substantially injurious to consumers." Because of this definition, a telemarketing practice that violates another Minnesota statute may also be pleaded as an unfair practice under section 325F.69.

Section 325D.44 lists deceptive trade practices, including representing that a person "has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that the person does not have." This covers impersonation of government agencies or well known companies in sales calls.

9. Contracts and cancellation

Minnesota has no telephone sales contract statute that requires a signed writing before a telephone sale becomes binding. The home solicitation sales law, sections 325G.06 to 325G.11, gives a buyer "the right to cancel a home solicitation sale until midnight of the third business day after the day on which the home solicitation sale occurs." It applies to consumer sales over $25 in which the seller "personally solicits the sale" and the buyer's agreement is made away from the seller's place of business. Whether a sale solicited and agreed to entirely by telephone is a home solicitation sale is not answered by the text. The definition speaks of personal solicitation, and an exclusion refers to buyer-initiated contacts by "oral, telephone, or written request" followed by a home visit, which suggests the law was written with in-person sales in mind. The exclusions include sales of insurance, securities, or real property.

The federal TSR requires express verifiable authorization for certain payment methods, and federal law has no general three-day cancellation right for telephone sales. The FTC's Cooling-Off Rule covers sales made in person away from the seller's place of business.

10. Exemptions summary

There is no blanket exemption for political or survey calls. The Eighth Circuit addressed the political call question directly in Van Bergen and again in Gresham.

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

ADAD. Section 325E.31(a) provides:

A person who is found to have violated sections 325E.27 to 325E.30 is subject to the penalties and remedies, including a private right of action to recover damages, as provided in section 8.31.

Section 8.31, subd. 3a supplies the private remedy:

In addition to the remedies otherwise provided by law, any person injured by a violation of any of the laws referred to in subdivision 1 may bring a civil action and recover damages, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney's fees, and receive other equitable relief as determined by the court.

Key features:

• No statutory damages. Minnesota has no fixed per-call amount comparable to the TCPA's $500 per violation, so a plaintiff must prove actual damages.
• Fees and costs are available, including costs of investigation.
• Public benefit requirement. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a private plaintiff suing under section 8.31, subd. 3a must show the action benefits the public (Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000)). In 2023 the Legislature added section 325F.70, subd. 3, which declares that a consumer fraud action under that subdivision "benefits the public." That amendment speaks only to consumer fraud claims and did not amend section 325E.31 or section 8.31. Whether an individual ADAD claim satisfies the public benefit requirement may therefore still be disputed.

Consumer fraud. Section 325F.70, subd. 3, effective August 1, 2023, gives a consumer "injured by a violation of sections 325F.68 to 325F.70, in connection with a sale of merchandise for personal, family, household, or agricultural purposes" the right to "recover damages, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney fees."

Seller disclosure and fax. Sections 325G.14 and 325E.395 route violations to the section 8.31 remedies. Section 325E.395 expressly mentions "a private right of action."

Limitations. None of these statutes contains its own limitations period. Section 541.05, subd. 1 sets six years for an action "upon a liability created by statute, other than those arising upon a penalty or forfeiture or where a shorter period is provided by section 541.07." That six-year period is commonly applied to private consumer protection claims under section 8.31, although we did not review a decision confirming its application to ADAD claims. A claim for the Attorney General's civil penalty may be treated as one arising upon a penalty. The federal TCPA private action is governed by the four-year federal catch-all period.

12. Attorney General enforcement and penalties

Section 8.31 is the Attorney General's main tool:

• Investigation and discovery. Subd. 2 authorizes investigation and pre-suit discovery.
• Assurances of discontinuance. Subd. 2b authorizes them.
• Injunction and civil penalty. Subd. 3 lets the Attorney General seek an injunction and "a civil penalty, in an amount to be determined by the court, not in excess of $25,000."

For the ADAD law, the 2023 amendment adds a separate penalty in section 325E.31(b):

In addition to the penalties and remedies under paragraph (a), the attorney general is entitled to sue for and recover on behalf of the state a civil penalty from a person found to have violated sections 325E.27 to 325E.30. The court must determine the civil penalty amount, which must not exceed $50,000.

Under section 325F.70, subd. 1, the Attorney General or "any county attorney may institute a civil action in the name of the state in the district court for an injunction prohibiting any violation" of the consumer fraud act.

The ADAD statute does not create a criminal offense. The referral and chain referral provision of section 325F.69, subd. 2 is a gross misdemeanor, but it does not address calls.

How Minnesota law differs from federal law

Where Minnesota is stricter

The ADAD law is broader than the TCPA in scope. It applies to any message "regardless of its content," so political, survey, and informational robocalls to landlines need consent or a live operator introduction. Under federal rules many non-telemarketing prerecorded calls to residential lines are permitted within numeric limits.

It also protects business lines. In Van Bergen the Eighth Circuit treated these differences as permissible under the TCPA's savings clause, which provides that "nothing in this section or in the regulations prescribed under this section shall preempt any State law that imposes more restrictive intrastate requirements or regulations on" autodialers, prerecorded voice messages, and telephone solicitations.

The calling window starts at 9:00 a.m. instead of 8 a.m. The seller disclosure statute requires the individual seller's name and requires the disclosures before any question is asked.

Where Minnesota is looser

Minnesota's consent standard does not require a writing. It also allows a live operator to obtain consent at the start of a call, and its exemptions for current business or personal relationships are broader than federal exemptions for prerecorded telemarketing calls. Its disconnect rule allows ten seconds rather than five. Its private remedy lacks statutory damages, so an individual plaintiff must prove actual harm, and the public benefit requirement under section 8.31 may limit individual suits.

Where Minnesota is the same or defers to federal law

Do not call compliance is governed entirely by federal rules because the state list expired. Minnesota has no text message or caller ID statute, so the TCPA, the Truth in Caller ID Act, and the FCC and FTC rules control.

Notable enforcement and case law

Van Bergen v. Minnesota, 59 F.3d 1541 (8th Cir. 1995). Van Bergen v. Minnesota (8th Cir. 1995) A candidate for governor wanted to use ADAD calls in his campaign. He challenged sections 325E.26 to 325E.31 under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and argued that the TCPA preempted them.

• Preemption. The court held that "the TCPA does not expressly preempt state law, nor is it implied in the TCPA that Congress intended to preempt state law, nor does the Minnesota statute conflict with the TCPA."
• Content neutrality. It held that section 325E.27 "is therefore content-neutral" because "All callers, whatever the content of their messages may be, must have either the express or the implied consent of the subscriber, or consent obtained through a live operator, to deliver an ADAD message."
• Result. It concluded that the statute "is a valid time, place or manner restriction on speech" as applied to the candidate.

The case is the foundation for treating the ADAD law as fully enforceable alongside the TCPA.

Gresham v. Swanson, 866 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2017). Gresham v. Swanson (8th Cir. 2017) A political consultant and his company sought a preliminary injunction against section 325E.27. They argued that Reed v. Town of Gilbert and Citizens United v. FEC had undermined Van Bergen.

• Severability. The court first held the 2009 disabled veterans clothing exception severable: "The balance of the statute pre-existed the amendment, and we presume that the Minnesota legislature would have retained the pre-existing statute without the later provision."
• Van Bergen still controls. The court then held that Van Bergen remains binding, explaining that "The exceptions depend on the relationship between the caller and the subscriber, not on what the caller proposes to say."
• Result. It affirmed the denial of the injunction.

Smith v. Securus Technologies, Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d 976 (D. Minn. 2015). Smith v. Securus Technologies (D. Minn. 2015) The plaintiffs received inmate calls that included prerecorded announcements from the calling platform provider. They sued under the TCPA and the ADAD law.

• Who made the calls. The court granted summary judgment because the inmate, not the provider, made the calls.
• No ADAD. The provider's system was not an ADAD because it did not select and dial the numbers. Quoting the statutory definition, the court held that a party "is only liable for violating the ADAD if it uses an" ADAD to call an individual.
• Why it matters. The decision shows that the "selects and dials" element is an independent requirement under Minnesota law, separate from the presence of a recorded message.

The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed the ADAD law in State ex rel. Humphrey v. Casino Marketing Group, Inc., 491 N.W.2d 882 (Minn. 1992), an enforcement action by the Attorney General. An official copy of that opinion was not located. Excerpts available through CourtListener indicate that the court affirmed a lower court ruling that "the ADAD statute withstands commercial speech scrutiny." The full opinion was not reviewed for this page.

Recent amendments (2023 to 2026)

• Laws 2023, chapter 57, article 4, section 9 (S.F. 2744). Signed May 24, 2023 and effective the day after final enactment. It rewrote section 325E.31, keeping the section 8.31 remedies as paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b), the Attorney General's ADAD civil penalty of up to $50,000.
• Laws 2023, chapter 57, article 4, sections 16 and 17. These amended section 325F.69, subd. 1 to add "unfair or unconscionable practice" and created subd. 8, defining unfair or unconscionable acts. Section 325D.44 was amended the same year to add unfair methods of competition and unfair or unconscionable acts to the list of deceptive trade practices.
• Laws 2023, chapter 52, article 19, section 15. Signed May 19, 2023 and effective August 1, 2023 for causes of action commenced on or after that date. It added section 325F.70, subd. 3, the consumer private enforcement provision, which states that "An action brought under this section benefits the public."
• Pending bills. No 2024, 2025, or 2026 enactment amending sections 325E.26 to 325E.31 was found, and no pending telemarketing bill was identified.

Compliance checklist

• Get consent before any prerecorded or synthesized voice call to a Minnesota number, whatever the call is about, or have a live operator obtain consent first and give the section 325E.29 disclosures. For telemarketing, get federal prior express written consent as well.
• Do not rely on the absence of a state do not call list. Scrub against the National Do Not Call Registry and your internal list as federal law requires.
• Limit ADAD calls and live residential sales calls to 9:00 a.m. through 9:00 p.m., measured in the subscriber's local time.
• Configure recorded message systems to release the line within 5 seconds of hang-up to meet the federal standard, which also satisfies Minnesota's ten-second rule.
• On sales calls, give the individual seller's name, the business name, the goods or services, and the fact that you want to sell them before asking any question.
• Treat business lines in Minnesota as protected by the ADAD consent rule.
• Review scripts for statements that could be deceptive or unfair under sections 325F.69 and 325D.44, including implied affiliations.
• For in-home follow-up sales, provide the three business day cancellation notice required by sections 325G.06 to 325G.11.
• Budget for exposure to Attorney General penalties of up to $50,000 for ADAD violations, plus fee-shifting private suits under section 8.31.

References

• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325E.26
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325E.27
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325E.28
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325E.29
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325E.30
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325E.31
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325E.312
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325E.3161
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325E.318
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325E.395
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325G.06
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325G.07
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325G.12
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325G.13
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325G.14
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325F.69
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325F.70
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325D.44
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/8.31
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/541.05
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2009/0/Session+Law/Chapter/178/
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/Session+Law/Chapter/57/
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/Session+Law/Chapter/52/
• https://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/07/943047P.pdf
• https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca8-16-03219/pdf/USCOURTS-ca8-16-03219-0.pdf
• https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mnd-0_15-cv-00550/pdf/USCOURTS-mnd-0_15-cv-00550-0.pdf
• https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227
• https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/64.1200
• https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/part-310

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.