TCPA Violation Demand Letter - Arizona

TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT AND ARIZONA TELEMARKETING VIOLATION DEMAND LETTER

SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED (USPS ARTICLE NO. [________________])
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[__/__/____]

[DEFENDANT COMPANY FULL LEGAL NAME]
ATTN: Legal Department / Registered Agent
[DEFENDANT ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]

[DEFENDANT REGISTERED AGENT IN ARIZONA, if known]
[REGISTERED AGENT ADDRESS]
[CITY, AZ ZIP]

Re: DEMAND — TCPA AND ARIZONA TELEMARKETING LAW VIOLATIONS
47 U.S.C. § 227; A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq.; A.R.S. § 44-1280 et seq.
Consumer: [CONSUMER FULL NAME]
Telephone Number(s) Violated: [________________________________]
Approximate Documented Violations: [____]
Estimated Total Violations: [____]

Dear Sir or Madam:

This law firm represents [CONSUMER FULL NAME] ("Consumer" or "Client"), an Arizona resident, in connection with your company's unlawful telephone communications in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227, the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act ("ACFA"), A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq., and the Arizona Telephone Solicitations Act, A.R.S. § 44-1280 et seq.

Please direct all future communications concerning this matter exclusively to our office and immediately and permanently cease all telephone communications with our Client.

IMPORTANT — STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: The Arizona Consumer Fraud Act has a one (1) year limitations period. A.R.S. § 12-541(5). State law claims will be filed before that deadline regardless of this demand's outcome.

I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK — FEDERAL AND ARIZONA LAW

A. Federal TCPA — 47 U.S.C. § 227

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits, among other things:

1. Autodialed or Prerecorded Calls to Cell Phones [47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)]: Any call using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") or an artificial/prerecorded voice to any cellular telephone number, without prior express consent.

2. Telemarketing Calls to DNC-Registered Numbers [47 U.S.C. § 227(c)]: Telemarketing calls to telephone numbers registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.

3. Internal DNC Violations [47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)]: Calls to persons who have requested placement on the caller's internal do-not-call list.

Statutory Damages:

• $500 per violation for standard violations
• $1,500 per violation (treble) for willful or knowing violations — 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C)

Federal SOL: 4 years — 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a).

B. ATDS Definition — Post-Facebook v. Duguid (Ninth Circuit)

Following Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021), an ATDS is equipment that uses a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce telephone numbers to be called. Arizona federal courts in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona apply the Ninth Circuit's post-Duguid analysis. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the ATDS definition is interpreted in light of Duguid but courts examine all surrounding evidence of automated calling capability. Evidence of predictive dialing, blast texting, and "dead air" pauses remain relevant to the ATDS analysis even post-Duguid.

C. Arizona Consumer Fraud Act — A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq.

The Arizona Consumer Fraud Act ("ACFA") prohibits deceptive acts and practices in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise. Unsolicited telemarketing and robocalling campaigns — particularly where the caller misrepresents the purpose or identity of the call — constitute consumer fraud under A.R.S. § 44-1522.

ACFA Key Provisions:

• Private right of action: A.R.S. § 44-1533 — any person injured by a violation may sue
• Actual damages: Full actual damages caused by the deceptive practice
• Punitive damages: Available for willful violations — A.R.S. § 44-1533
• Injunctive relief: A.R.S. § 44-1528 (Arizona AG may also obtain statewide injunctions)
• Attorney's fees: A.R.S. § 44-1534 — available to prevailing party
• Statute of limitations: ONE (1) YEAR — A.R.S. § 12-541(5)

ACFA Reliance Requirement: Unlike federal consumer protection statutes, Arizona's ACFA requires the consumer to prove actual reliance on the deceptive act or practice. In a telemarketing context, this means showing our Client was deceived by the nature, purpose, or identity of the caller and that such deception caused harm. We have preserved evidence of this reliance.

D. Arizona Telephone Solicitations Act — A.R.S. § 44-1280 et seq.

Arizona enacted the Arizona Telephone Solicitations Act, A.R.S. § 44-1280 et seq., which imposes registration, bonding, and conduct requirements on telephone solicitors operating in or into Arizona.

Key Requirements Under A.R.S. § 44-1280 et seq.:

☐ Registration: Telephone solicitors must register with the Arizona Secretary of State before conducting telephone solicitations in Arizona. A.R.S. § 44-1281.

☐ Bond Requirement: Registered solicitors must post a surety bond with the Secretary of State. A.R.S. § 44-1281(B).

☐ Prohibited Hours: Telephone solicitations are prohibited before 8:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time (Arizona does not observe daylight saving time, so this is MST year-round in most of Arizona). A.R.S. § 44-1284.

☐ Required Disclosures: Solicitors must immediately disclose: (1) name of the individual calling; (2) name of the company; (3) purpose of the call; and (4) address of the company upon request. A.R.S. § 44-1284(A).

☐ Prohibited Conduct: Solicitors may not use threats, obscene language, repeated calls to annoy, or misrepresentations of any kind. A.R.S. § 44-1284(B).

☐ Arizona AG Enforcement: The Arizona Attorney General — Consumer Protection Division may bring civil enforcement actions. A.R.S. § 44-1285. Criminal penalties apply for willful violations.

Arizona Secretary of State — Telephone Solicitor Registration Check:
Registration status for [DEFENDANT COMPANY NAME]: ☐ Registered ☐ Not Registered ☐ Verification Pending
(Check: https://www.azsos.gov/)

E. A.R.S. § 12-341.01 — Mandatory Attorney's Fees (Unique Arizona Provision)

Arizona's attorney fee statute, A.R.S. § 12-341.01, requires courts to award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party in any contested action arising out of contract. Where the telemarketing relationship involves any contractual element — a prior customer account, a purchase agreement, a subscription — § 12-341.01 may apply in addition to ACFA § 44-1534, significantly increasing the potential fee award. This is a mandatory (not discretionary) award in contested contract actions — a significant deterrent to litigation by defendants in Arizona.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Consumer Information

B. Defendant Information

C. Consent Status

☐ No consent ever provided. Our Client never provided any form of consent — express or otherwise — to receive calls or texts from your company.

☐ No prior express written consent for telemarketing. Our Client may have provided basic contact information in a different context, but never gave the prior express written consent required for autodialed/prerecorded telemarketing calls under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2).

☐ Consent revoked. Our Client expressly revoked any prior consent on [__/__/____] by [DESCRIBE: verbal request / written request / opt-out text reply "STOP" / letter / email], and calls/texts continued thereafter.

☐ Reassigned number. The telephone number was reassigned to our Client on approximately [__/__/____]; our Client never had any relationship with your company.

☐ Scope limitation. Our Client provided limited consent for [DESCRIBE PURPOSE] that did not extend to the type or frequency of calls/texts received.

D. Call and Text Log

The following is a log of unauthorized communications. Our Client's phone records are available and will be produced in litigation.

[ATTACH FULL LOG AS EXHIBIT A IF MORE THAN 10 VIOLATIONS]

Total Documented Violations: [____]
Estimated Additional Undocumented Violations: [____]

Note: Arizona does not observe daylight saving time. All times above are Mountain Standard Time (MST = UTC-7), which is Mountain Daylight Time (MDT = UTC-6) in summer months. Calls placed by out-of-state callers may have been made during hours that appeared permissible in other time zones but violated Arizona's 8 a.m.–9 p.m. MST rule under A.R.S. § 44-1284.

E. Evidence of Autodialer Use

The following characteristics indicate use of an ATDS or prerecorded/artificial voice:

☐ Prerecorded or artificial voice message without a live human speaking
☐ "Dead air" or pause before live agent connection (classic predictive dialer signature)
☐ Caller ID showed spoofed or generic number
☐ Identical or substantially identical message content across multiple calls/texts
☐ Generic messaging not referencing our Client by name or account
☐ High call volume / calls at automated intervals
☐ Simultaneous calls placed to multiple lines
☐ Blast/mass text characteristics (identical wording, same timestamp window)
☐ Company's own marketing materials or website reference automated outreach technology
☐ Other: [________________________________]

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. ATDS Calls to Cell Phone — 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)

Your company placed [____] calls and/or [____] text messages to our Client's cellular telephone using equipment constituting an ATDS, without prior express consent. Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), each such call or text constitutes a separate violation. The Ninth Circuit's post-Duguid framework, applied in the District of Arizona, does not immunize predictive dialers or blast SMS platforms that store pre-loaded lists and dial or text them automatically.

B. National Do-Not-Call Registry Violations — 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)

Our Client's telephone number was registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on [__/__/____]. Your company had constructive notice no later than 31 days after registration (the period during which the registry is updated). Each telemarketing call or text made after the applicable date constitutes an independent § 227(c) violation.

C. Arizona Telephone Solicitations Act Violations — A.R.S. § 44-1280 et seq.

Your company violated the Arizona Telephone Solicitations Act by:

☐ Conducting telephone solicitations into Arizona without registering with the Arizona Secretary of State (A.R.S. § 44-1281)
☐ Failing to post the required surety bond (A.R.S. § 44-1281(B))
☐ Placing calls before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. MST (A.R.S. § 44-1284) — specifically on: [DATES]
☐ Failing to identify the caller, company name, and/or purpose of the call at the outset (A.R.S. § 44-1284(A))
☐ Making misrepresentations during solicitations (A.R.S. § 44-1284(B))
☐ Failing to honor our Client's do-not-call request (A.R.S. § 44-1284(C))
☐ Other: [________________________________]

D. Arizona Consumer Fraud Act Analysis — A.R.S. § 44-1522

Your company's telemarketing conduct constitutes consumer fraud under A.R.S. § 44-1522 because:

[DESCRIBE THE DECEPTIVE PRACTICE — e.g.: "Your callers misrepresented themselves as representing [COMPANY] when in fact they were third-party lead generation agents; they claimed our Client had previously requested information about [PRODUCT] when no such request was ever made; the calls used a fake caller ID displaying a local Arizona area code to disguise their origin."]

Our Client relied on these misrepresentations to their detriment by [DESCRIBE RELIANCE — e.g., spending time on the phone, disclosing personal information, incurring expenses to screen/block calls]. This satisfies the ACFA's reliance requirement. See Peery v. Hansen, 120 Ariz. 266, 585 P.2d 574 (1978) (reliance required under ACFA).

E. Willfulness — Treble Damages Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C)

Your violations were willful and knowing because:

☐ Calls continued after our Client explicitly requested removal from your calling list
☐ Calls continued after our Client revoked consent
☐ Your company called a number registered on the National DNC Registry
☐ Your company has been the subject of prior TCPA complaints or enforcement actions
☐ Your company continued calling after receiving written notice to cease
☐ Other evidence of willfulness: [________________________________]

Each willful violation exposes your company to $1,500 in damages.

IV. DAMAGES CALCULATION

A. Federal TCPA Statutory Damages — 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)

B. Arizona Consumer Fraud Act Damages — A.R.S. § 44-1533

C. Arizona Telephone Solicitations Act Damages

Arizona TSA violations may be enforced by the Arizona AG; in addition, ACFA claims arising from TSA violations carry the same damages framework. Individual consumers may raise TSA non-compliance as part of an ACFA claim.

D. Attorney's Fees — A.R.S. § 12-341.01

To the extent any prior customer relationship or agreement exists between our Client and your company (e.g., a prior service contract, account agreement, or terms of service), A.R.S. § 12-341.01 provides for a mandatory award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party in any contested action on contract. Our Client will seek all available fee statutes.

E. Total Settlement Demand

V. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE

You are hereby directed to immediately preserve and not destroy, overwrite, or alter any of the following:

☐ All call records, metadata, and call logs to and from our Client's telephone number(s)
☐ All text message records, content, and metadata
☐ All consent records, opt-in documentation, and any purported prior express written consent forms
☐ All do-not-call lists, opt-out records, and suppression lists
☐ All dialing platform data, predictive dialer logs, and SMS campaign records
☐ All records of your Arizona telephone solicitor registration with the Secretary of State
☐ All surety bond documentation
☐ All vendor and lead-generation partner agreements and records
☐ All call scripts and training materials
☐ Records of all prior TCPA complaints, lawsuits, FCC complaints, and Arizona AG complaints
☐ All compliance policies and TCPA/telemarketing compliance program documentation
☐ Any third-party "consent" records claimed to authorize the calls to our Client

Failure to preserve evidence may result in spoliation sanctions, adverse inference jury instructions, and enhanced damages.

VI. DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT

To resolve this matter without litigation, we demand the following within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter:

A. Monetary Payment

Payment of $[________________________________] representing:

• Federal TCPA statutory/treble damages: $[________]
• Arizona Consumer Fraud Act damages: $[________]
• Attorney's fees incurred to date: $[________]

B. Injunctive Relief

1. Permanent removal of all of our Client's telephone number(s) from all calling lists, SMS lists, databases, and marketing platforms
2. Placement of our Client on your company's permanent internal do-not-call list
3. Written confirmation, signed by an authorized officer, that the above actions have been completed
4. If not registered under A.R.S. § 44-1280 et seq.: Certification that your company will register with the Arizona Secretary of State before any further telemarketing into Arizona

C. Response Required

Please respond in writing within thirty (30) days with:

1. The identity of your calling platform, dialer vendor, and lead source for our Client's number
2. All consent records purportedly authorizing contact with our Client
3. Your Arizona Secretary of State telephone solicitor registration number (if any)
4. Your settlement offer

VII. ENFORCEMENT AND REFERRAL

If no satisfactory settlement is reached, our Client will:

☐ File suit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix or Tucson Division) for TCPA violations

☐ File suit in [Maricopa County / Pima County] Superior Court for ACFA and Arizona Telephone Solicitations Act violations

☐ File a complaint with the Arizona Attorney General — Consumer Protection Division
2005 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004 | (602) 542-5763
Online: https://www.azag.gov/complaints/consumer

☐ File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (National DNC Registry enforcement)
Online: https://www.donotcall.gov/

☐ File a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission
Online: https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/

☐ Report to the Arizona Secretary of State for failure to register as a telephone solicitor
Online: https://www.azsos.gov/

☐ Evaluate class action treatment if facts support a class of similarly-situated Arizona consumers

VIII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

This letter is written without prejudice to all rights and remedies of our Client under federal and Arizona law, including the right to seek class certification if appropriate. Nothing herein is a waiver of any claim, right, or remedy.

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: ___________________________________
[ATTORNEY FULL NAME]
State Bar of Arizona No. [________]
[STREET ADDRESS]
[CITY, AZ ZIP]
Phone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

Attorneys for [CONSUMER FULL NAME]

ENCLOSURES:
☐ Exhibit A — Complete call/text log with dates, times, and descriptions
☐ Telephone billing records/screenshots
☐ Screenshots of text messages (with metadata)
☐ Voicemail recordings (USB drive or digital attachment)
☐ Written revocation(s) of consent
☐ National DNC Registry confirmation
☐ Prior written correspondence demanding cessation of calls
☐ Authorization to represent / representation agreement

cc: [CONSUMER NAME]
Arizona Attorney General — Consumer Protection Division (courtesy copy)
Client File

ARIZONA TCPA / TELEMARKETING QUICK REFERENCE

ARIZONA PRACTICE NOTES FOR ATTORNEYS

☐ ACFA 1-Year SOL Is the Critical Deadline: Do not let the 4-year federal TCPA SOL lull you into delay. ACFA claims expire in one year from discovery, and ACFA provides punitive damages the TCPA alone does not. File or formally toll both claims.

☐ ACFA Reliance Requirement: Distinguish your Arizona ACFA claim from a bare TCPA claim. Document: (1) what the caller represented; (2) when the consumer heard/read it; (3) how the consumer acted in reliance. This is required under Arizona courts' interpretation of A.R.S. § 44-1522.

☐ AZ Telephone Solicitations Act — Correct Statute: The controlling statute is A.R.S. § 44-1280 et seq. (not § 44-1271, which is a different provision). Verify Secretary of State registration at https://www.azsos.gov/. Unregistered solicitors face criminal penalties in addition to civil liability.

☐ MST Year-Round (Except Navajo Nation): Arizona does not observe daylight saving time. A call placed at 9:15 p.m. EDT by an East Coast caller is 6:15 p.m. MST — permissible. But verify the consumer's actual local time. The Navajo Nation (northeastern AZ) observes MDT in summer.

☐ A.R.S. § 12-341.01 — Strategic Use: If the telemarketer had any prior contractual relationship with the consumer (account, service agreement, membership), invoke § 12-341.01 for mandatory fees in a contested contract action. This is uniquely potent in Arizona and meaningfully raises the defendant's exposure.

☐ Post-Duguid ATDS Analysis in the Ninth Circuit: The District of Arizona follows Ninth Circuit precedent. While Duguid narrowed the ATDS definition, evidence of predictive dialers, click-to-dial with automated list management, and mass SMS platforms may still satisfy the standard. Document all characteristics suggesting automation — dead air, generic content, high volume, identical messages.

☐ Arizona AG Referral: Filing with the AZ AG — Consumer Protection Division is free, creates a public record, and sometimes prompts faster resolution. The AG may also pursue injunctive relief against repeat violators under A.R.S. § 44-1528, which benefits all Arizona consumers.

☐ Class Actions: Arizona state courts and the District of Arizona have both certified TCPA classes. If the defendant appears to have called many Arizonans, evaluate class potential early.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• 47 U.S.C. § 227 (TCPA): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227
• 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (FCC TCPA Regulations): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-64/subpart-L/section-64.1200
• A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq. (Arizona Consumer Fraud Act): https://www.azleg.gov/ars/44/01521.htm
• A.R.S. § 44-1280 et seq. (Arizona Telephone Solicitations Act): https://www.azleg.gov/ars/44/01280.htm
• A.R.S. § 12-341.01 (Attorney fees): https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00341-01.htm
• A.R.S. § 12-541 (1-year limitations): https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00541.htm
• Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-511_p86b.pdf
• Arizona Secretary of State — Telephone Solicitor Registration: https://www.azsos.gov/
• Arizona Attorney General — Consumer Protection: https://www.azag.gov/complaints/consumer
• National Do-Not-Call Registry: https://www.donotcall.gov/
• FCC Consumer Complaint Center: https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/
• U.S. District Court — District of Arizona: https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/

This template is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed Arizona attorney before use.