The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Ethics and Elections
BILL: SB 588
INTRODUCER: Senators Leek and Gaetz
SUBJECT: Campaign Communications
DATE: February 28, 2025
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Cleary Roberts EE Pre-meeting
2. JU
3. RC
I. Summary:
SB 588 enables individuals to opt out of political texts and phone calls from particular callers by
requesting the texts or phone calls to stop. The bill allows individuals to file an injunction to stop
further communications in violation of the law and to recover attorney fees and costs.
The bill takes effect July 1, 2025.
II. Present Situation:
Federal Law
In 1991, Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
1
to combat
unwarranted telephone marketing calls to cell phones and home phones by placing restrictions on
the use of automated telephone-dialing system (ATDS), otherwise known as an autodialer or
“robocalls.” The TCPA was Congress’ response to consumer outrage about receiving endless
and harassing calls from telemarketers, using equipment that could automatically dial a
telephone number and deliver an artificial or recorded message.
2
In enacting the TCPA,
Congress found that banning robocalls was “the only effective means of protecting telephone
consumers from the nuisance and privacy invasion.
3
In 1992, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted rules to implement the TCPA,
creating the regulatory framework for campaign phone calls and general messaging rules. The
TCPA prohibits almost all robocalls and robotexts to mobile phones, without prior consent.
4
1
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) is codified at section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended. See 47 U.S.C. § 227.
2
See Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc. 591 U.S. 610, 614-15 (2020).
3
Barr, 591 U.S. at 615.
4
Barr, 591 U.S. at 615.
REVISED: BILL: SB 588 Page 2
To trigger the TCPA’s prohibitions the caller or texter must be using an autodialer, defined as
“equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using
a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.”
5
Political campaign-
related robocalls, generated through autodialing, to mobile phones are prohibited without the
recipient person’s prior consent.
6
Political robocalls to landlines are allowed without prior
consent with exceptions.
7
Political robotexts, text messages generated from autodialing, sent to a
mobile phone are prohibited without the texted person’s prior consent.
8
Text messages, sent
manually without the use of autodialing, can be sent without prior consent.
9
For calls and texts that require consent, the caller must honor the called party’s request to revoke
consent.
10
The called party can revoke consent at any time and in any reasonable manner, such as
replying “stop” to a text or asking not to be called again on a voice call.
11
However, where
consent is contractually provided, as in the case in credit agreements, the parties can bargain to
require mutuality or particular revocation methods.
12
5
See 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1); But See Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592, U.S. 395, 399, 141, S. Ct. 1163, 1167, 209 L. Ed. 2d 272
(2021) (The Supreme Court narrowed the definition of an “autodialer.” The Court held that to qualify as an autodialer under
the TCPA, the device must have the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce numbers.).
6
See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b); See Political Campaign Robocalls and Robotexts Rules, Federal Communications Commission
Webpage (last visited February 25, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/rules-political-campaign-calls-and-texts. (Political campaign-
related autodialed or prerecorded voice calls, including autodialed live calls, and prerecorded voice messages, are prohibited
to cell phones, pagers, or other mobile devices without the called party’s prior express consent. The same restrictions apply to
protected phone lines such as emergency or toll-free lines, or lines serving hospitals or similar facilities.).
7
Political Campaign Robocalls and Robotexts Rules, Federal Communications Commission Consumer Guide (last
Reviewed: 10/22/2024), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/Political-Campaign-Robocalls-and-Robotexts-Rules-
Consumer-Guide.pdf (In addition, political robocalls made to residential landline phones without the prior consent of the
called party are limited to no more than three calls within any consecutive 30-day period.).
8
See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report
and Order, 18 FCC rcd 14014, 14115, para. 165 (2003) (2003 TCPA Order); see also Satterfield v. Simon &Schuster, Inc.,
569 F.3d 946 (9
th
Cir. 2009) (noting that text messaging is a form of communication used primarily between telephones and
is therefore consistent with the definition of a “call”).
9
FCC Enforcement Advisory No. 2016-03, DA 16-264 (March 14, 2016) (Enforcement Advisory and FAQ) (In 2016, the
FCC issued an Enforcement Advisory regarding the agency’s TCPA robocall and text rules, which included an attachment
addressing frequently asked questions (FAQ). The FAQ stated that “only manually placed text messages are permissible
without prior express consent.”).
10
The National Law Review, Consent and Revocation Under the TCPA, (Mar. 21, 2023),
https://www.natlawreview.com/print/article/consent-and-revocation-under-tcpa (There are two types of prior consent
provided for under the TCPA: 1) Prior Express consent is required to place autodialed, non-solicitation calls or texts to a cell
phone; and, 2) Prior express written consent is a heightened form of consent, which must be evidenced by a written
agreement signed by the call recipient, and is required to place autodialed telemarketing or advertising calls or texts to a cell
phone. The written agreement must include a clear and conspicuous disclosure).
11
Political Campaign Robocalls and Robotexts Rules, Federal Communications Commission Consumer Guide (last
Reviewed: 10/22/2024), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/Political-Campaign-Robocalls-and-Robotexts-Rules-
Consumer-Guide.pdf; See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2)(E).
12
See Reyes v. Lincoln Auto. Fin. Servs., 861 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 2017) (held that a consumer may not unilaterally withdraw
consent in a bargained-for, bilateral contract); But see Ammons v. Ally Fin., Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00505, 2018 WL
3134619, at *18 (M.D. Tenn. June 27, 2018) (court adopted general rule that consumer consent may be revoked at any time
“by any reasonable means.”). BILL: SB 588 Page 3
The TCPA includes a private right of action.
13
A caller who places a call to a cell phone without
consent using an ATDS is subject to $500 in damages per call.
14
The damages amount is $1,500
per call if the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly committed the violation.
15
Further, the TCPA authorized the FCC to create a “single national database to compile a list of
telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations.”
16
In 2003, Congress created the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, which directed the FCC to
coordinate with the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) to create a uniform do-not-call list.
17
The National Do Not Call Registry was established which covers all telemarketers (with the
exception of certain nonprofit organizations) and applies to both interstate and intrastate calls.
18
The registry is administered by the FTC. As the National Do Not Call Registry has gained
popularity, some states have decided to forgo the expense of maintaining their own do-not-call
lists.
19
Political organizations have been deemed exempt from the restrictions of the do-not-call list and
its enforcement provisions because the law’s restrictions have been held to apply only to
telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of sellers of goods or services.
20
A new emerging issue is the rise of and use of artificial intelligence (AI) in telemarketing. The
FCC recently declared that calls made with AI-generated voices are considered “artificial” under
the TCPA, making voice cloning technology used in common robocall scams targeting
consumers illegal in many cases.
21
13
47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).
14
47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B)-(C)
15
Id. see Barr, 591 U.S. 616 (“The TCPA imposes tough penalties for violating the robocall restriction, private parties can
sue to recover up to $1,500 per violation or three times their actual monetary losses, which can add up quickly in a class
action. § 227(b)(3). States may bring civil actions against robocallers on behalf of their citizens. § 227(g)(1). And the Federal
Communications Commission can seek forfeiture penalties for willful or repeated violations of the statute. § 503(b).”).
16
47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(3); See also Mainstream Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. F.T.C., 358 F.3d 1228, 1235 (10
th
cir. 2004) (noting that
the TCPA “authorized the FCC to establish a national database of consumers who object to receiving ‘telephone
solicitations,’ which the act defines as commercial sales calls.”).
17
See 15 U.S.C. § 227(c)(3).
18
Federal Trade Commission, National Do Not Call Registry, (last visited February 24, 2025), https://www.donotcall.gov/
19
Currently, only 11 states maintain their own Do Not Call lists: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Tennessee, Wyoming.
20
See Cumunas v. Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm., 570 F. Supp. 3d 288, 300-01 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (“Thus the legislative
history supports the conclusion that the TCPA intended to exclude tax-exempt political organizations from the Do Not Call
List); See Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc. v. F.T.C., 358 F.3d 1128, 1234 (2004) (“[t]he national do-not-call registry’s
restrictions apply only to telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of sellers of goods or services, and not to charitable or
political fundraising calls.”); See Libby v. Nat'l Republican Senatorial Comm., No. 5:21-cv-197, 551 F.Supp.3d 724, 729
(W.D. Tex. July 27, 2021) (dismissing a section 227(c) claim because “political organizations are exempt from the Do Not
Call Registry”); See The Do Not Call Registry, Federal Trade Commission (last visited February 24, 2025),
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/do-not-call-registry (The FTC's website states: “There are some
exemptions to the Do Not Call rules. Because of the limits to FTC's authority, the Registry does not apply to political calls or
calls from non-profits and charities (but the Registry does cover telemarketers calling on behalf of charities.”).
21
See FCC Makes AI-Generated Voices in Robocalls Illegal -State AGs Will Now Have New tools to Go After Voice Cloning
Scams, Federal Communications Commission Release (February 8, 2024), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-
400393A1.pdf. BILL: SB 588 Page 4
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) provides additional guidelines for political
communications, including text messaging, and mandates that all political messages, regardless
of medium, must include proper disclaimers.
22
This typically means identifying who paid for and
authorized the message.
23
Failure to comply with these disclosure requirements can result in
penalties.
24
Florida
The Florida Telemarketing Act (FTA) protects consumers from telemarketers’ aggressive sales
tactics and deceptive telemarketing practices.
25
Telemarketers in Florida must comply with very
strict restrictions, including when they can call and what they must say when they call. There are
certain entities that are generally exempt from the FTA, including a person soliciting for political
purposes.
26
Florida law allows candidates, persons, or organizations to contact voters by telephone call or
text message regarding the support or opposition of a candidate, an elected public official, a
ballot measure, and electioneering message, so long as the communication complies with the
specific sponsorship disclaimer requirements for political advertisements,
27
independent
expenditures,
28
and electioneering communications
29
under s. 106.147, F.S.
30
22
Advertising and disclaimers, Federal Election Commission Web Page (last visited February 24, 2025),
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/advertising-and-disclaimers/; See 52 U.S.C. 30120; See 11 CFR 110.11
23
Id. See L. Paige Whitaker, Campaign Finance Law: Disclosure and Disclaimer Requirements for Political Campaign
Advertising, (Congressional Research Service) (December 30, 2019), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11398.
24
Administrative Fines, Federal Election Commission Web Page (last visited February 24, 2025), https://www.fec.gov/legal-
resources/enforcement/administrative-fines/; See 52 U.S.C. §30104(a); See 11 CFR 111 Subpart B.
25
Sections 501.601-501.626, F.S.
26
See s. 501.604, F.S. (There are approximately 28 exemptions, including: soliciting for religious, charitable, political or
educational purposes; research companies; newspapers; book and video clubs; cable television; and persons or companies
with whom the consumer has a prior business relationship.). A person soliciting for political purposes are still required to
comply with ss. 501.608(1)(b) (“[a}ny commercial telephone seller claiming to be exempt from the act under s. 501.604(2) . .
. must file with the department a notarized affidavit of exemption) and s.501.616(6) and (7) (“(6) [c]ommercial telephone
seller or salesperson may not make a commercial telephone solicitation phone call before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time at
the called person’s location,” and “(7) [a] commercial telephone seller or salesperson making a commercial telephone
solicitation call may not intentionally act to prevent transmission of the telephone solicitor’s name or telephone number to the
party called when the equipment or service used by the telephone solicitor is capable of creating and transmitting the
telephone solicitor’s name or telephone number.”).
27
See 106.011(4) and (15), F.S. (A “political advertisement” is a paid expression in “communication media,” such as the
Internet or a telephone company, which “expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate or the approval or rejection
of an issue.”).
28
See Section 106.011(12)(a), F.S. (An “independent expenditure” is a specific type or subset of a political advertisement,
one where the expenditure is “not controlled by, coordinated with, or made upon consultation with, any candidate, political
committee, or agent of such candidate or committee.”
29
See Section 106.011(8)(a), F.S. (An electioneering communication generally means a “communication that is publicly
distributed by a television station, radio station, cable television system, satellite system, newspaper, magazine, direct mail,
or telephone” that refers to a clearly-identifiable candidate without expressly advocating the election or defeat of any
candidate, but that is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than an appeal to vote for or against a specific
candidate; Is made within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election; and is targeted to the relevant
electorate in the geographic area the candidate would represent if elected.).
30
See also Candidate and Campaign Treasure Handbook (2024 Election Cycle) Florida Department of State Division of
Elections (Rev. 9/2024), https://files.floridados.gov/media/708868/candidate-and-campaign-treasurer-handbook-2024.pdf.
(Any telephone call or text message supporting or opposing a candidate, elected public official, or ballot proposal, and any
electioneering text message or telephone call, must include the phrase “Paid for by,” followed by the name of the persons or BILL: SB 588 Page 5
The disclaimer requirements do not apply in the following circumstances:
31
• Any telephone call in which both the individual making the call is not being paid and the
individuals participating in the call know each other prior to the call.
• Any telephone call conducted for the purpose of polling respondents concerning a candidate
or elected public official which is part of a series of like telephone calls that consists in fewer
than 1,000 completed calls and averages more than two minutes duration.
• Any text message that (i) is sent by an unpaid individual without the assistance of mass
distribution technology or (ii) requires the recipient to sign up or opt in to receive it.
Current law prohibits any telephone calls or text messages from stating or implying that the
caller represents any person or organization unless the person or organization so represented has
given specific approval in writing to make such representation.
32
Further, no telephone call or
text message shall state or imply that the caller represents a nonexistent person or organization.
33
Any telephone call or text message, not conducted by independent expenditure, supporting or
opposing a candidate or ballot proposal, requires prior written authorization by the candidate or
sponsor of the ballot proposal that the call or text message supports.
34
Any person who willfully violates any provision of s. 106.147, F.S., commits a misdemeanor of
the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, F.S.
35
Any person or organization conducting business in this state by making phone calls or sending
text messages in support of or opposition to a candidate or elected official must designate and
maintain a registered agent for at least 180 days after ceasing such activities. This registered
agent must be available for service of process, notices, or legal demands as required by law and
must be registered with the Division of Elections. Any person or organization that violates this
section commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or
775.083, F.S.
36
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
SB 588 prohibits a candidate, person, or organization from texting or calling a voter regarding
the support or opposition of a candidate, an elected public official, a ballot measure, and any
electioneering message, if that voter indicates he or she does not consent to receive such
communications.
organizations sponsoring the call or message or, in the case of text message, a working hyperlink or a uniform resources
locater (URL) to a website containing the required disclosure); See 106.147(1), F.S.
31
Section 106.147(1)(e), F.S.
32
Section 106.147(2)(a), F.S.
33
Section 106.147(2)(b), F.S.
34
Section 106.147(3), F.S. (further a copy of such written authorization must be placed on file with the qualifying officer by
the candidate or sponsor of the ballot proposal prior to the time the calls or text messages commence).
35
Section 106.147(4), F.S. (The term “person” includes any candidate; any officer of any political committee, affiliated party
committee, or political party executive; any officer, partner, attorney, or other representative of a corporation, partnership, or
other business entity; and any agent or other person acting on behalf of any candidate, political committee, affiliated party
committee, political party executive committee, or corporation, partnership, or other business entity.).
36
Section 106.1475(4), F.S. BILL: SB 588 Page 6
Further, the bill provides the methods in which a voter may provide notice that he or she does not
consent to such communications. For telephone calls, the voter provides notice by indicating on
the call that he or she no longer wishes to receive such calls. For text messages, the voter
provides notice by responding to the text message with “Stop.”
The bill authorizes a voter to bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin a
violation. A voter who successfully enjoins the violation is entitled to reasonable attorney fees
and costs.
The bill takes effect July 1, 2025.
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
None.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
None.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
The bill may be subject to future challenges on First Amendment grounds as
impermissibly regulating political speech,
37
which is entitled to the highest degree of
protection under the First Amendment.
38
Under strict scrutiny analysis, the government
must demonstrate the restriction serves a compelling government interest and is the least
37
See 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 498-99 (1996) (First amendment analysis draws a distinction
between restrictions placed on commercial speech and restrictions placed on other types of speech, including political
expression. This distinction must be made because the state has more discretion in regulating commercial speech than other
forms of protected speech); See Fla. Bar. V. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618, 623-24 (1995) (an intermediate level of scrutiny
is used to assess the validity of restrictions on commercial speech).
38
See R. Sam Garrett and Kathleen Ann Ruane, Automated Political Telephone Calls (“Robo Call”) in Federal Campaigns:
Overview and Policy Options, Congressional Research Service (Updated March 22, 2010),
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34361/14, citing Eu v. San Francisco Democratic Cen. Com, 489 U.S.
214, 223 (1989) (holding that “the First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a
campaign for political office.”). BILL: SB 588 Page 7
restrictive alternative to serve that interest.
39
The First Amendment “protects [a
speaker’s] right not only to advocate their cause but also to select what they believe to be
the most effective means for so doing.”
40
Governments, however, are permitted to place
reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech so long as they are
content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and serve a significant government interest, and leave
open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.
41
Several cases in recent decades have challenged federal and state laws restricting or
prohibiting the use of autodialers to make recorded calls. No simple rule has emerged
from these cases, in which some laws have been struck down, but others have been
upheld, for example:
• The Ninth Circuit has held that the provision in the TCPA banning automated,
prerecorded calls to residences, is constitutional under the First Amendment.
42
• The United States Supreme Court struck down an exception to the robocall
restrictions of the TCPA,
43
which allowed robocalls to be made solely to collect a
debt owed to the United States, because the law was content-based, favoring speech
made for the purpose of collecting government debt over political and other speech,
and the law could not survive strict scrutiny.
44
• The Ninth Circuit struck down Montana’s robocall law,
45
which restricts automated
telephone calls promoting a political campaign or any use related to a political
campaign, for violating the First Amendment.
46
• The Seventh Circuit upheld an Indiana anti-robocall law,
47
ruling that that statute did
not discriminate by content and instead regulated who may be called, as opposed to
the content of the message.
48
39
See Id., citing McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 347 (1995) (“When a law burdens core political speech,
we apply ‘exacting scrutiny,’ and we uphold the restriction only if it is narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state
interest.).
40
See Id., citing Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 424 (1988) (Supreme Court struck down state law that prohibited the use of
paid workers to obtain signature on voter-initiative petitions as an impermissible burden on political speech).
41
See Id., citing Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, (1991). Laws that “do not foreclose an entire medium of expression, but
merely shift the time, place or manner of its use” likely will be upheld so long as “ample alternative channels for
communication” are left open. Restrictions, such as, the use of automated telephone dialers or prerecorded messages that
apply only to political calls can be argued are a content-based restriction on speech, which would require the application of
strict scrutiny. But content-based discrimination could be avoided if the restriction encompassed all speech that utilized a
particular technology.
42
Moser v. F.C.C., 46 F.3d 970, 975 (9
th
Cir. 1995).
43
47 U. S. C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii).
44
Barr, 591 U.S. 610, 614 (2020) (The court invalidated the government-debt exception and applied traditional severability
principles to sever it from the robocall restriction).
45
See Montana Code s. 45-8216(1)
46
Victory Processing, LLC v. Fox, 937 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2019).
47
Ind. Code s. 24-5-14-(5)(a)(b) (The statute prohibited robocalls unless the subscriber requested, consented to, permitted, or
authorized receipt of the message or the message was immediately preceded by a live operator who obtained the subscriber’s
consent. The statute provided 3 exceptions: (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, (3) Messages advising
employees of work schedules.).
48
Patriotic Veterans, Inc. V. Zoeller, 845 F. 3d 303, 305 (7
th
Cir. 2017) (The court found nothing in the statute, including the
exceptions, that disfavored political speech, rather the statute, as a whole, disfavored cold calls, calls from strangers, and that
the statute’s exceptions, likewise, depended on the relation between the caller and the recipient, not on what the caller
proposes to say. The exceptions collectively concerned who may be called not what may be said, and therefore did not BILL: SB 588 Page 8
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None.
B. Private Sector Impact:
Candidates, individuals, or political organizations may have an indeterminate increase in
cost in creating, managing, and maintaining an internal list of callers who provide notice
not to be called. Further, there may be an increase in costs associated with penalties
implemented due to violations and an increase in costs associated with defending against
alleged violations in court.
C. Government Sector Impact:
There may be an increase in the number of cases to local courts’ dockets as more
plaintiffs may bring actions to enjoin violations under the law. This may increase court
costs to handle the increased number of cases to the docket. But currently, such potential
impact is indeterminate.
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
None.
VII. Related Issues:
None.
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill substantially amends section 106.147, Florida Statutes.
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
None.
establish content discrimination.); See also Van Begen v. Minnesota, 59 F.3d 1541, 1551 (8
th
Cir. 1995) (Eighth Circuit
upheld a Minnesota Statute, MINN. STAT. ANN. ss. 325E.26 to .31, that prohibits all robocalls except in instances where the
caller and the recipient have prior relationship, business or otherwise. The statute explicitly stated that the restriction applies
to “any call, regardless of its content.” It also does not limit the restriction to calls made for a particular purpose, though it
does allow a recorded message to be played if it is preceded by a live operator who receives consent to play the message); See
also Bland v. Fessler, 88 F.3d 729, 732-36 (9
th
Cr. 1996) (The Ninth Circuit upheld a California statute, Cal. Pub. Util. Code
s. 2874(a), that is very similar to Minnesota anti robocall statute in that it targets all robocalls without reference to the
purpose or content of the call.). BILL: SB 588 Page 9
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.