Brief ⁽¹⁾

HB 2891 would amend the Kansas Consumer Protection Act pertaining to certain unsolicited consumer telephone calls. Specifically, the bill would require the Attorney General to establish a database listing telephone numbers of consumers who object to receiving unsolicited consumer telephone calls and would prohibit telephone solicitors from calling such consumers. This list is popularly termed a "do-not-call list." Consumers who would be eligible for inclusion in the do-not-call list are residential and business telephone subscribers.

The Attorney General must have the do-not-call list in operation by July 1, 2001. The Attorney General may administer the list or contract with another entity for that purpose. The Attorney General must adopt rules and regulations no later than July 1, 2001. These rules and regulations would address several issues specified in the bill pertaining to a consumer's notification for inclusion in the do-not-call list, and would identify how telephone solicitors could access the list. The consumer who wants to be included in the do- not-call list would not be assessed any fee. The Attorney General would establish the fee for telephone solicitors and qualified trade associations to access the list. A qualified trade association which pays to access the do-not-call list may make that list available to its members on any terms the association and its members may impose.

The bill would amend the definition of "unsolicited consumer telephone call" to:

• �place a time limit of 36 months on the preexisting business relationship between a telephone solicitor and the person receiving the solicitor's call. The effect of that amendment would be to consider a solicitor's call "unsolicited" and therefore subject to penalties if the call is not placed within the 36-months time period of a previous business call or transaction.



• �delete newspaper publishing businesses from the exception to the definition. The effect of that amendment would be to subject such businesses to the same requirements that govern other telephone solicitors.

Background

HB 2891 was supported by Representative Doug Johnston, who was the primary sponsor of the bill. (There were 85 other sponsors.) According to Representative Johnston, the intent of the bill is to "empower citizens to put a stop to unwanted telemarketing calls at their homes." The introduced version of the bill was based on Georgia's do-not-call list legislation which was enacted in 1998. Mr. Rarrick, Deputy Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division, testified in support of the concept of do-not-call legislation but raised concerns with the introduced version of the bill. Mr. Rarrick indicated a preference for Oregon's law as a model for legislation in Kansas. (Oregon's law was passed in 1999.) Dr. Larry Bechtold, representing AARP, testified in support of the bill.

Mike Murray, Director of Governmental Affairs, Sprint, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Murray recommended the required use of the Direct Marketing Association Telephone Preference List, in addition to use of company-specific internal lists required by the Federal Communications Commission. He advised the House Committee to exempt any telephone solicitors who use such lists. Other opponents included: Mike Reecht, AT&T; Doug Smith, a spokesperson for the Direct Marketing Association; and Tyler Prochnow, a spokesperson for the American Teleservices Association. An attorney for the Direct Selling Association submitted written testimony in opposition to the bill. Bud Grant, Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Industry, recommended a time frame be applied to a preexisting relationship between telephone solicitors and consumers with respect to the definition of "unsolicited consumer telephone call."

The House Committee on Utilities amended the bill to authorize business subscribers, as well as residential subscribers, to participate in the do-not-call list program. The Committee also amended the bill to apply a time frame, as suggested by Mr. Grant and Mr. Rarrick, to the preexisting relationship between telephone solicitors and consumers with respect to the definition of "unsolicited consumer telephone call." In response to Mr. Rarrick's recommendations, several Committee amendments concerning implementation of the do-not-call list use as a model Oregon's law. Accordingly, the administrator of the list would be the Attorney General, and not the Kansas Corporation Commission. The Oregon law authorizes qualified trade associations receiving do-not-call lists to make those lists available to their members. The Committee amended the bill to incorporate that provision.

The Committee deleted a defense for telephone solicitors who have established internal procedures to comply with the law. The deletion of this provision was recommended by Mr. Rarrick who considered it to be unenforceable. The Committee also amended the bill to require all telecommunications providers, and not only local telephone companies, to inform their respective subscribers about the availability of the do-not-call list. Furthermore, the Committee amended the bill to authorize the Attorney General to determine the fee for telephone solicitors to access the do-not-call list; the introduced version of the bill prescribed an annual fee of $10. Finally, the Committee deleted newspaper publishing businesses from the exception to the definition of "unsolicited consumer telephone call."

The Division of the Budget's fiscal note assumed the Kansas Corporation Commission would administer the do-not-call list and that revenues from telephone solicitors would not be forthcoming. Because the Attorney General would be administering the list in the House version of the bill and other assumptions would apply to both implementation and revenues (consumers would not be assessed a fee), the Kansas Corporation Commission's estimated revenues and expenditures for the introduced version of the bill would no longer be applicable.

1. *Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/bill_search.html