A Tale of Time Frames: The Established Business Relationship

If you’ve ever worked in sales, marketing, or compliance, you’ve probably heard, “You can call someone on the federal “do-not-call” list if you have an established business relationship (EBR), i.e., a purchase within the past 18 months or an inquiry within the past 3 months.” That’s the federal law under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and most businesses have it drilled into their heads.

But here’s what many companies forget: state laws often have their own, much stricter time frames. And if you’re calling consumers across state lines, you can’t just follow the federal law. You have to comply with the most restrictive law that applies. For example:

  • California & Colorado: The inquiry window is just 30 business days for California and 30 days for Colorado.

  • Connecticut, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington: Your purchase and inquiry windows expire after 12 months.

  • Michigan: The same 12-month EBR for purchases, but there’s no inquiry exemption at all.

  • Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana: An even tighter squeeze: your EBR lasts just 6 months for both purchases and inquiries.

  • New Jersey & Wisconsin: No inquiry exemptions. If there’s no current agreement, don’t make that call.

  • Indiana: No EBR exemption at all.

Penalties for “do-not-call” violations can be steep, and ignorance of state laws won’t get you off the hook. If your business relies on outbound calling, you need to ensure that your compliance team (or whoever is handling your call lists) is filtering numbers based on both federal and state laws.

So, next time someone on your team confidently declares the “18 months/3 months” time frame as gospel, remind them that the real answer is: it depends on the state.

If you’re looking for an easier way to stay compliant with state-specific telemarketing laws, our firm offers over 30 detailed charts summarizing these and other rules. Reach out if you’d like more information.

Previous
Previous

Michigan Ruling Opens Door to Lawsuits Over Caller ID Violations

Next
Next

California’s Privacy Laws Have Teeth, and They’re Biting