# Texas supplement
Checked: 2026-09-18

**September 24 update:** see [Texas recovery path](texas-recovery-path.md). *Pinn v. CycleBar* rejects a single-text §305.053 DNC claim; do not treat this section as a way around the federal repeat-contact threshold. The update also addresses Chapter 302 exemptions, SB 140, presuit notice, evidence needs and costs.

## Scope and area-code issue

The intake now supports researching Texas law. User-reported residence, personal-use status, and approximate number tenure are recorded in ignored `private/intake.md`; these are not independently verified exhibits. County is now recorded privately; exact dates remain unknown.

A California area code is not by itself a bar to federal TCPA protection. Federal restrictions do not turn on having an area code matching the state of residence. Personal use is relevant to residential-status analysis but does not establish every claim element. [47 U.S.C. §227](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227), [47 C.F.R. §64.1200(e)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/64.1200).

For Texas Chapter 302, the registration provision expressly addresses solicitations from Texas or to a purchaser located in Texas. Accordingly, location must be investigated rather than inferred from the number. California law is not automatically applicable merely because of the area code. Choice-of-law and jurisdiction remain case-specific. [§302.101](https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/bc/htm/bc.302.htm).

## Candidate state routes

### Chapter 305: communications violating the TCPA

Section 305.053 authorizes a Texas civil action for a communication violating the TCPA, its regulations, or Chapter 305 Subchapter A. A prevailing damages plaintiff is entitled to the greater of $500 per violation or actual damages, with discretionary enhancement for knowing/intentional violations. Do not automatically add a second recovery for the same injury on top of federal damages; review overlap and applicable precedent. Section 305.001's separate mobile-call prohibition includes a specific-call-charge condition: personal mobile use alone does not establish it. Sections 305.054–.055, effective September 1, 2025, add DTPA enforcement language and address repeat claimants. These do not dispense with proof of a violation. [Chapter 305](https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/bc/htm/bc.305.htm).

### Chapter 304: Texas no-call list

The list combines Texas requests and the Texas-related portion of the national registry. Do not presume this California-area-code number was included; verify historical listing/publication. Section 304.052 uses a 60-day publication period. Section 304.257's private route for a second/subsequent violation requires notice to the telemarketer, a verified agency complaint within 30 days of the call, and agency non-initiation of enforcement before day 121 after filing. Screen recent contacts promptly; do not wait out the pilot cap. These prerequisites are specific to this route, not all TCPA actions. Section 304.2581 adds DTPA enforcement language; its interaction with existing prerequisites needs legal review. [Chapter 304](https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/BC/htm/BC.304.htm).

### Chapter 302: solicitation registration

The current definition expressly includes text/graphic/image transmissions after the September 1, 2025 amendment. Registration obligations have numerous exemptions; missing registration alone is not enough to assert liability without checking applicability, exemption facts, and the private remedy. Review historical law for older contacts rather than applying the amendment retroactively. [Chapter 302, §§302.001, .051–.064, .101, .303](https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/bc/htm/bc.302.htm).

The Secretary of State currently states that businesses sending texts with prior consumer consent need not register, citing the state's position and an agreement in *Ecommerce Marketers Alliance v. Texas*, 1:25-cv-1401. This makes consent investigation essential to any registration theory. Check the actual current court record before litigation; this research checked the official FAQ, not the docket or final disposition. [Secretary of State FAQ](https://www.sos.texas.gov/statdoc/faqs3400.shtml).

## Changes to the pilot

1. Prioritize recent existing contacts for deadline review, then repeated identifiable business marketing for packet preparation. No new messages or complaints are authorized by this research.
2. County is recorded in private intake. Collect Texas residence start date and where relevant messages/calls were received. Long number ownership does not prove twenty years of Texas residence or registry enrollment.
3. Obtain federal registry verification for the exact number. Separately verify Texas-list inclusion if relying on Chapter 304. Preserve registration date, verification date, and applicable publication history separately.
4. Preserve full two-way threads and consent evidence. Long tenure helps investigate reassignment but cannot establish lack of consent to particular businesses.
5. For each packet, evaluate federal and Texas theories separately, including effective dates, exceptions, notice, limitations, DTPA prerequisites/remedies, and double-recovery restrictions. Do not encode statutory amounts as automatic earnings.

This is statutory screening, not a finding that a sender is liable. Texas/Fifth Circuit precedent, county-specific procedure, current litigation affecting the statutes, and the actual evidence remain necessary before external escalation.