TCPA and Minnesota Telemarketing Violation Demand Letter — Minnesota

DEMAND LETTER — TCPA AND MINNESOTA TELEMARKETING LAW VIOLATIONS

SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[__/__/____]

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

Re: DEMAND — VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL TCPA AND MINNESOTA TELEMARKETING LAW
Consumer: [________________________________]
Telephone Number(s) Affected: [________________________________]
Approximate Number of Documented Violations: [____]
Total Statutory Damages Sought: $[____]

Dear Sir or Madam:

This law firm represents [________________________________] ("Consumer" or "Client") in connection with your company's systematic violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227, and multiple provisions of Minnesota telemarketing and consumer protection law, including the Minnesota Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act (Minn. Stat. § 325F.6921), the Minnesota No-Call Act (Minn. Stat. § 325E.26 et seq.), and the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (Minn. Stat. § 325F.68 et seq.).

Your company has placed unauthorized telephone calls and/or transmitted unauthorized text messages to our Client in violation of both federal and Minnesota law. This letter constitutes formal demand for monetary compensation and immediate cessation of all communications.

Please direct all future communications regarding this matter to our office. Immediately cease all telephone and text message communications with our Client.

I. MINNESOTA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Minnesota provides consumers with a layered system of telemarketing protections that significantly supplements federal TCPA rights. Unlike states that rely solely on the federal statute, Minnesota consumers have three distinct state-law causes of action with a 6-year statute of limitations — three times longer than the federal TCPA's 4-year period.

A. Federal TCPA — 47 U.S.C. § 227

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits:

1. Autodialed and prerecorded calls/texts to cell phones without prior express consent — 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)
2. Prerecorded calls to residential landlines for telemarketing without prior express written consent — 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B)
3. Telemarketing calls to numbers registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry — 47 U.S.C. § 227(c); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200

Federal Statutory Damages:

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

Federal Statute of Limitations: 4 years — 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a)

ATDS Definition After Facebook v. Duguid: Following Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021), an automatic telephone dialing system is equipment that uses a random or sequential number generator either to store or to produce telephone numbers to be called.

B. Minnesota Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act — Minn. Stat. § 325F.6921

Minnesota enacted the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act to supplement and strengthen federal telemarketing protections. This statute prohibits deceptive and abusive telemarketing practices and establishes specific disclosure and calling requirements for telemarketers operating in or targeting Minnesota consumers.

Key Prohibitions Under Minn. Stat. § 325F.6921:

• Prohibits misrepresentations in telemarketing solicitations
• Requires disclosure of the caller's identity, the purpose of the call, and the nature of the goods or services offered
• Prohibits deceptive prize, gift, or sweepstakes solicitations
• Prohibits calls that a reasonable consumer would find harassing or abusive

Minnesota Calling Hours — Minn. Stat. § 325F.6921:
Minnesota restricts telemarketing calls to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. local time of the consumer — the morning restriction is one hour stricter than federal law (which permits calls starting at 8:00 a.m.).

Enforcement:

• Minnesota Attorney General has primary enforcement authority
• Civil penalties available
• Private right of action through the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and Private AG Statute (see below)

C. Minnesota No-Call Act — Minn. Stat. § 325E.26 et seq.

Minnesota maintains a state-specific No-Call Registry that supplements the federal National Do-Not-Call Registry. Under Minn. Stat. § 325E.26:

• Minnesota residents may register their telephone numbers with the Minnesota No-Call Registry administered by the Public Utilities Commission
• Telemarketers must honor both the National DNC Registry and the Minnesota No-Call Registry
• Registration on the Minnesota No-Call Registry is permanent (no re-registration required)

Private Right of Action — Minn. Stat. § 325E.26:
The Minnesota No-Call Act provides consumers a private right of action for violations, including:

• Actual damages, OR
• $500 per violation (whichever is greater)
• Injunctive relief

Statute of Limitations: 6 years — Minn. Stat. § 541.05

Minnesota's No-Call Act Is Stronger Than Federal Law: The federal National DNC Registry requires re-registration every 5 years and has limited private enforcement mechanisms. Minnesota's state registry is permanent and provides consumers with a direct private right of action for $500 per violation.

D. Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act — Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.68, 325F.69

The Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (Minn. Stat. § 325F.69) prohibits any person, in connection with the sale of merchandise, from using fraud, false pretenses, misrepresentations, misleading statements, or deceptive practices.

Unauthorized and deceptive telemarketing calls constitute violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act because they involve deceptive commercial practices in connection with the solicitation for sale of goods and services.

Remedies Under Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act:

• Actual damages
• Injunctive relief
• Civil penalties (enforced by Attorney General)

Statute of Limitations: 6 years — Minn. Stat. § 541.05

E. Minnesota Private Attorney General Statute — Minn. Stat. § 8.31

Minnesota's Private Attorney General Statute (Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a) gives consumers a private right of action to enforce the Consumer Fraud Act and related statutes. This statute authorizes recovery of:

• Actual damages
• Attorney's fees — this is a critical distinction from federal TCPA, which does not expressly provide attorney's fees to individual plaintiffs
• Injunctive relief

Why Minnesota's Private AG Statute Matters: Federal TCPA claims do not entitle individual plaintiffs to attorney's fees. Minnesota's Private AG Statute fills this gap — consumers who prevail on state law claims can recover attorney's fees, making Minnesota one of the most favorable states for telemarketing litigation.

Statute of Limitations: 6 years — Minn. Stat. § 541.05

II. VIOLATIONS — SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

A. Federal TCPA Violations (47 U.S.C. § 227)

Autodialed/Prerecorded Calls and Texts to Cell Phone:

☐ Calls placed to Consumer's cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) without prior express consent — 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)
☐ Calls placed to Consumer's cell phone using an artificial or prerecorded voice without prior express consent — 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)
☐ Text messages sent to Consumer's cell phone via ATDS without prior express consent — 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)
☐ Calls/texts continued after Consumer explicitly revoked any prior consent
☐ Calls/texts placed to a telephone number that was reassigned to Consumer, with no new consent obtained

Telemarketing Do-Not-Call Violations:

☐ Telemarketing calls placed to Consumer's number registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry (registered since [__/__/____]) — 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)
☐ Telemarketing calls placed after Consumer made a company-specific do-not-call request on [__/__/____]
☐ Failure to maintain a company-specific internal do-not-call list
☐ Failure to honor Consumer's do-not-call request within the required 30-day period

Prerecorded Telemarketing Violations:

☐ Prerecorded telemarketing calls placed to Consumer's residential line without prior express written consent — 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B)
☐ Prerecorded messages that failed to provide an opt-out mechanism at the beginning of the message
☐ Prerecorded messages that failed to provide a toll-free number for opting out

B. Minnesota Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act Violations (Minn. Stat. § 325F.6921)

☐ Calls placed before 9:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local Minnesota time, violating Minnesota's stricter calling hour restrictions
☐ Failure to disclose caller's true identity and the company represented at the beginning of the call
☐ Failure to disclose the purpose of the call before proceeding with the solicitation
☐ Misrepresentations regarding the nature, price, or terms of goods or services offered
☐ Deceptive prize, sweepstakes, or gift solicitation practices
☐ Harassing or abusive calling conduct

C. Minnesota No-Call Act Violations (Minn. Stat. § 325E.26)

☐ Telemarketing calls placed to Consumer's number registered on the Minnesota No-Call Registry (registered since [__/__/____])
☐ Failure to cross-reference and honor the Minnesota state No-Call Registry
☐ Continued calls after Consumer registered on the Minnesota No-Call Registry

D. Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act Violations (Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.68, 325F.69)

☐ Deceptive commercial practices through unauthorized telemarketing solicitations
☐ Misrepresentations in telemarketing communications regarding [________________________________]
☐ Fraudulent or misleading representations in connection with the solicitation for sale of goods/services

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Consumer Information

B. Defendant Information

C. Consent Status

Our Client:

☐ Never provided any consent to receive calls or texts from your company or its agents

☐ Never provided prior express written consent required for telemarketing autodialed or prerecorded calls/texts

☐ Provided limited consent that did not extend to the type of calls/texts received. Specifically, the consent was limited to: [________________________________] — and did not authorize the telemarketing calls at issue.

☐ Revoked any prior consent on [__/__/____] by [________________________________] (describe method: verbal request, written letter, opt-out text reply, etc.)

☐ Number was recently reassigned to our Client on approximately [__/__/____]; our Client never provided any consent to your company.

D. Call and Text Log

[Attach separate call log if needed]

Total Documented Violations: [____]
Estimated Additional Violations: [____]
Total Calls/Texts Violating Minnesota Calling Hours (before 9 a.m. or after 9 p.m.): [____]

E. Evidence of ATDS or Prerecorded Message Use

The following characteristics indicate your company used an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or prerecorded/artificial voice:

☐ Pause or "dead air" before a live agent connected (characteristic of predictive dialers)
☐ Prerecorded or artificial voice delivered the message
☐ Identical or substantially identical message content across multiple calls
☐ Generic greeting not specific to our Client by name
☐ High-frequency calls inconsistent with manual dialing
☐ Calls placed simultaneously across multiple consumer lines
☐ Marketing materials or public statements referencing automated calling systems
☐ Other: [________________________________]

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. ATDS Liability Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)

The TCPA prohibits any person from making calls using an ATDS or artificial/prerecorded voice to a cellular telephone number without prior express consent. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). Under Facebook v. Duguid (2021), an ATDS uses a random or sequential number generator to store or produce numbers. Your company's calling platform [DESCRIBE PLATFORM OR CONDUCT] constitutes or uses an ATDS because [EXPLAIN].

Your company lacks valid consent because: [EXPLAIN — e.g., consent was never given, was revoked, was obtained through deceptive means, etc.]

B. National DNC Registry Violations

Our Client's number has been registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since [__/__/____]. Telemarketers must check the National DNC Registry at least every 31 days and may not call registered numbers. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). Your company had constructive and/or actual notice of this registration.

C. Minnesota No-Call Act — Private Right of Action

Our Client's number has been registered on the Minnesota No-Call Registry since [__/__/____]. Minn. Stat. § 325E.26 provides a private right of action for $500 per violation — in addition to federal TCPA remedies — with a 6-year statute of limitations. Each call to our Client's registered number after registration is a separate violation.

D. Minnesota Calling Hours Violation

Minnesota law prohibits telemarketing calls before 9:00 a.m. local Minnesota time. Minn. Stat. § 325F.6921. Your company placed [____] calls to our Client before 9:00 a.m. on the following dates: [________________________________]. This violates Minnesota's stricter morning call prohibition, which is one hour stricter than the federal 8:00 a.m. standard.

E. Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act — Deceptive Practices

Your conduct constitutes deceptive and fraudulent practice under Minn. Stat. § 325F.69 because [DESCRIBE — e.g., misrepresentation of the caller's identity, deceptive offers, unauthorized commercial solicitations]. Under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a, our Client is entitled to actual damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief.

F. Willful and Knowing Violations — Treble Damages

The TCPA's $1,500 treble damages apply where violations are "willful or knowing." 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C). Your violations were willful and knowing because:

☐ You continued calling after our Client explicitly revoked consent
☐ You continued calling after our Client requested placement on your internal do-not-call list
☐ You have been subject to prior TCPA complaints, regulatory actions, or lawsuits regarding similar conduct
☐ You continued calling a number registered on the National DNC Registry or Minnesota No-Call Registry
☐ Other evidence of willfulness: [________________________________]

V. DAMAGES CALCULATION

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

B. Minnesota No-Call Act Damages — Minn. Stat. § 325E.26

C. Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act / Private AG Damages — Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.69, 8.31

D. Combined Damages Summary

VI. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION DIRECTIVE

You are hereby directed to preserve all documents, data, and electronically stored information related to our Client and your telemarketing practices, including:

• All call records, logs, and metadata for calls to our Client's number(s)
• All text message records and content sent to our Client
• Consent records and documentation of any purported prior express written consent
• Do-not-call lists, opt-out logs, and suppression records
• Dialing platform records, including campaign logs, lead lists, and dialer configurations
• Vendor agreements with any third-party lead generators or calling services
• Scripts used for calls/texts at issue
• Training materials for telemarketing personnel
• Policies and procedures for TCPA and Minnesota law compliance
• Records of any prior TCPA complaints, lawsuits, regulatory inquiries, or consent decrees
• Minnesota No-Call Registry compliance records and scrubbing logs

Failure to preserve this evidence may result in court-imposed sanctions, adverse inference instructions at trial, and separate claims for spoliation.

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

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

A. Monetary Payment

Payment of $[____] to our Client, representing:

B. Non-Monetary Relief

1. Permanent removal of our Client's telephone number(s) from all calling lists, databases, and marketing campaigns
2. Placement on your company's internal permanent do-not-call list
3. Written certification by a responsible officer that the above actions have been completed

VIII. RESPONSE REQUIRED

Respond in writing within thirty (30) calendar days including:

1. The calling platform or service provider used to place the calls
2. The source of our Client's telephone number and any purported consent records
3. Your settlement offer and proposed resolution

If we do not receive a satisfactory response within thirty days, our Client will file suit without further notice in either the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota or the Minnesota District Court, as counsel determines most advantageous, asserting all federal and state law claims outlined herein.

IX. CONCLUSION

Your company's repeated violations of federal TCPA law and Minnesota telemarketing statutes have caused our Client significant annoyance, inconvenience, and invasion of privacy. The combined remedies available under federal law and Minnesota law — including the Private Attorney General statute's attorney's fees provision — make this matter economically significant.

We encourage your company to resolve this matter promptly and fairly.

This letter is written without prejudice to all rights and remedies of our Client, all of which are expressly reserved.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]

By: _________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
Minnesota Attorney Registration No. [____]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY, MINNESOTA ZIP]
[TELEPHONE]
[EMAIL]

Attorneys for [________________________________]

ENCLOSURES:
☐ Call/text log with dates and times
☐ Phone billing records
☐ Screenshots of text messages
☐ Voicemail recordings (USB drive)
☐ Written revocation of consent (if applicable)
☐ National DNC Registry confirmation (screenshot with registration date)
☐ Minnesota No-Call Registry confirmation (screenshot with registration date)
☐ Authorization to represent client

cc: [________________________________] (Client)
Minnesota Attorney General — Consumer Protection Division (651-296-3353)
Federal Trade Commission — DNC Registry Complaint
Client File

MINNESOTA TELEMARKETING LAW — LEGAL REQUIREMENTS QUICK REFERENCE

MINNESOTA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

☐ Minnesota No-Call Act Creates Independent $500/Violation Claim: Unlike states that rely solely on the federal DNC registry, Minnesota's own No-Call Registry (Minn. Stat. § 325E.26) provides a separate private right of action for $500 per violation. Stack this with TCPA claims for maximum recovery.

☐ Attorney's Fees Via Private AG Statute — Critical Minnesota Advantage: Federal TCPA does not expressly authorize attorney's fees for individual plaintiffs. Minnesota's Private Attorney General Statute (Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a) does. Pleading Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act claims preserves this fee-shifting remedy.

☐ 6-Year State SOL vs. 4-Year Federal SOL: Minnesota consumer fraud claims have a 6-year statute of limitations (Minn. Stat. § 541.05) — two years longer than federal TCPA. Old calls that are time-barred under federal law may still be actionable under Minnesota state law.

☐ Stricter Morning Call Hours: Minnesota prohibits calls before 9:00 a.m. (vs. 8:00 a.m. federal). Early-morning calls that are lawful under federal law may violate Minnesota law.

☐ Minnesota AG Complaint for Leverage: Filing with the Minnesota Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division (651-296-3353 or ag.state.mn.us) creates parallel regulatory pressure. The AG has authority to seek civil penalties and injunctions against telemarketing violators.

☐ Class Action Potential: TCPA and Minnesota consumer fraud violations are well-suited to class action treatment where the defendant has called thousands of Minnesota numbers. Consider whether class certification is appropriate before filing an individual action.

☐ Minnesota Conciliation Court for Small Claims: For smaller individual TCPA claims (under $15,000), Minnesota Conciliation Court offers a fast, low-cost forum. Multiple documented violations can easily reach the $15,000 threshold.

☐ Identifying the Calling Platform: In discovery, identify the dialing platform vendor (e.g., Avaya, NICE, Five9, Genesys). Dialer type is critical to proving ATDS status post-Facebook v. Duguid.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Minn. Stat. § 325F.6921 — Minnesota Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325F.6921
• Minn. Stat. § 325E.26 et seq. — Minnesota No-Call Act: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325E.26
• Minn. Stat. § 325F.69 — Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (Prevention): https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325F.69
• Minn. Stat. § 325F.68 — Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325F.68
• Minn. Stat. § 8.31 — Attorney General; Consumer Protection; Private AG Statute: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/8.31
• Minn. Stat. § 541.05 — Limitations of Actions (6-year period): https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/541.05
• 47 U.S.C. § 227 — Telephone Consumer Protection Act: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title47-section227
• 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 — FCC TCPA Implementing Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-64/subject-group-ECFR7b64dece8a0b8ed/section-64.1200
• Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021) — ATDS definition
• Minnesota Attorney General — Consumer Protection: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Consumer/
• National Do-Not-Call Registry: https://www.donotcall.gov/
• Minnesota No-Call Registry (Public Utilities Commission): https://www.mn.gov/puc/

This template is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Federal and Minnesota telemarketing laws are complex and fact-specific. Consult a licensed Minnesota attorney before filing suit.