HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1106

BYRepresentatives Wang and P. King 

Revising the enforcement of telephone solicitation laws.

House Committe on Energy & Utilities

Majority Report:  Do pass.  (14)

      Signed by Representatives Nelson, Chair; Todd, Vice Chair; Barnes, Brooks, Gallagher, Hankins, Jacobsen, Jesernig, Madsen, May, Miller, Sutherland, Unsoeld and S. Wilson.

House Staff:Fred Adair (786-7113) and Deborah Senn (786-7198)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON ENERGY & UTILITIES MARCH 4, 1987

BACKGROUND:

In 1986, legislation was enacted to regulate telephone solicitation.  Telephone solicitation is defined as an unsolicited telephone call to a residential telephone customer to encourage a person to purchase property, goods, or services or to donate money, property, goods or services.  The law requires that any individual making a telephone solicitation call must identify himself or herself within the first thirty seconds of the call, and if the called party states that he or she does not want any more calls the called party's name must be taken off the list for one year.  There is a right of action by the Attorney General as well as a private right of action which allows for $100 damages per violation and attorney's fees.

The penalty portion of the law provides that when the attorney general is taking an action, the first offense may be treated by a warning.  There is no such warning provision in the section which allows for the private right of action.

SUMMARY:

The word "repeated" is added before the word "violations".  This requires a showing, under the private right of action, that there has been more than one violation.

Fiscal Note:      Requested February 20, 1987.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Phil Prettyman, United Way of King County, and representing all United Ways in the state on this issue; June Mansfield, Executive Director, Visually Impaired, Seattle.

House Committee - Testified Against:      None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    This change will eliminate much unnecessary legal action.  Charitable organizations use many lists and could mistakenly call someone who had been called from another list.  Also, someone could move who had asked to be taken off a list but has a new phone number.  Charities are working to make repeated calling less likely to happen, but there should not be a penalty for what is most likely for the called person a one-time mistake.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      None Presented.