Section 33A.051 is the Texas caller ID spoofing statute. The conduct it reaches is defined by intent, not by the technology — substituting caller ID information is routine and lawful in many contexts.
What the Statute Prohibits
A person commits an offense if, in connection with a telecommunications service or VoIP service, the person causes a caller identification service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate caller identification information, with the intent to defraud or harm another person.
The statute contains exceptions, including for law enforcement activity and for telecommunications, broadband, and VoIP service providers acting in the ordinary course of business.
Intent Is the Element
A great deal of lawful activity involves caller ID that does not match the originating line:
- A business with many lines displaying a single main number
- A call center displaying the client's number
- Physicians, lawyers, and social workers calling from personal phones while displaying an office number
- Domestic violence shelters and protective services masking a location
- Answering services and outsourced support
None of that is an offense, because none of it is done with intent to defraud or harm. The statute targets the spoofing that supports fraud schemes — the fake "IRS," "bank fraud department," or "warrant" calls, and neighbor-spoofing used to induce answers.
The "My Number Was Spoofed" Problem
Spoofing operations use other people's real numbers. The owner of a spoofed number receives the angry callbacks, the complaints, and occasionally the investigator. Carrier call detail records establish what actually originated from a line — and they routinely exonerate the person whose number was displayed.
Federal Exposure
The federal Truth in Caller ID Act prohibits knowingly transmitting misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. The FCC imposes very large forfeitures, and robocall operations are also prosecuted as wire fraud. The TRACED Act and STIR/SHAKEN authentication have made attribution considerably easier than it once was.
Anyone facing a state charge under this section should assume parallel federal and regulatory exposure. See our federal criminal defense page.
Defenses
No intent to defraud or harm. The principal defense, and usually established by the business context of the calls.
A statutory exception applies. Law enforcement activity; provider conduct in the ordinary course of business.
Attribution. Shared platforms, resold VoIP services, compromised PBX systems, and stolen credentials mean the account holder is frequently not the caller. An independent review of carrier and platform records is essential.
No display of misleading information. Where the number displayed was one the caller was authorized to use, the element fails.
Related
- Section 33A.03 — unlawful telecommunications devices
- Breach of computer security (33.02) · Houston federal criminal defense
Charged in Harris County?
Brian Foley is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and a former Harris County Felony Chief Prosecutor; Luis Baez is a former Trial Bureau Chief. Call or text (713) 703-1718 for a free, confidential consultation.