HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 2298

BYRepresentatives Vekich and Wang; by request of Attorney General

Regarding water treatment devices.

House Committe on Commerce & Labor

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (11)

      Signed by Representatives Vekich, Chair; Cole, Vice Chair; Smith, Ranking Republican Member; Forner, Jones, R. King, Leonard, O'Brien, Prentice, Walker and Wolfe.

House Staff:Jim Kelley (786-7166)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE & LABOR JANUARY 24, 1990

BACKGROUND:

The state does not currently regulate the sale of water treatment devices.  Water treatment devices are installed to filter contaminants from drinking water.  The devices are usually installed either at the tap to filter drinking water or elsewhere in the home to filter all water used.  These filters have been sold for between $100 and $4,000.

The attorney general has found unfair and deceptive practices by some sellers of water treatment devices, including the use of false and misleading statements.  Further, the business practices of certain water treatment companies may work financial hardship upon some consumers because the current law allows liens on real property to secure financing for water treatment devices.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  Unfair advertising, sales, and business practices relating to the sale of water treatment devices are prohibited.  Water treatment device does not include a product for which the only claim made is that it will soften water by removing mineral deposits.  Persons selling, leasing, or renting water treatment devices are prohibited from making any claim regarding the presence of contaminants in a consumer's water unless the claim is substantially based on scientifically or medically accepted factual data and the consumer receives a written summary of the substance and source of the data.  Test results of a consumer's water quality must be disclosed to the consumer.  Other specific representations and practices are prohibited unless they are substantially based on scientifically or medically accepted factual data.

Liens on real property to secure financing for water treatment devices are prohibited.  Such a lien, in existence as of the effective date of this act, is void unless amended and refiled as a fixture lien.

A violation of these provisions constitutes a consumer protection act violation.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  No substantive changes were made.  All changes are clerical in nature.

Fiscal Note:      Requested January 20, 1990.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Janet Reis, Attorney General, Fair Practices Division (Consumer Protection); Joe Daniels, Washington State Association of Water/Wastewater Districts; and Bill Liechty, Department of Health.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Larry Stevens and John W. Brown, Amway; and Evelyn Jarvis-Ferris, Shaklee.

House Committee - Testimony For:    The bill attempts to address two common tactics of some sellers of water treatment devices, scare tactics and misrepresentations of product capabilities.  The bill requires substantiation of claims and minimal disclosure.  It is necessary to protect consumers who invest up to $4,000 on water treatment systems.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      There are problems with two provisions in particular.  The first provision requires a written summary of the substance and source of factual data upon which a claim is based that the device removes particular contaminants from the water.  The second provision requires the same type of information when a claim is made that any contaminant exists or may exist in the consumer's water.  Both of these provisions place a terrible burden on the seller.  The Consumer Protection Act is sufficient to deal with any problems in this area.