Brief ⁽¹⁾

HB 3030 would amend the Consumer Protection Act relating to deceptive practices to prohibit businesses from using, in printed advertisements, assumed or fictitious names that include the name of any municipality, community, or region in this state in a manner suggesting that the business is located in such municipality, community, or region, unless the person's business is, in fact, located in such municipality, community, or region. Businesses also could use municipal, community, or regional names if the printed advertisement includes the complete street and city address of the location from which the business is actually conducted within the state. If the business is located outside of Kansas, the state name must also be included. Also, publishers would not be liable for the publication of an advertisement when such publisher had no knowledge that the business was not, in fact, located in such municipality, community, or region.

The bill contains exceptions for the use of: any trademark or service mark registered under the laws of this state or under federal law; any name that, when applied to the goods or services of such person's business, is descriptive of them; and any name that is a surname.

Background

During the hearing held on HB 3030 by the House Committee on Federal and State Affairs, the Committee heard testimony that some out-of-state floral telemarketers use deceptive advertisements in phone directories which imply that the business is located in the community. In actuality, calls to those local numbers are call-forwarded to an out-of-state telemarketer.

Speaking in support of the bill before the House Committee were Senator Goodwin, Representative Edmonds, a representative of the Attorney General, and two owners of Kansas floral businesses. There were no opponents.

The bill is identical to SB 614, by Senator Goodwin, which had been heard, but not acted upon, by the Senate Committee on Commerce at the time the House Committee took action on this bill.

A fiscal note on the House bill had not been prepared at the time the House Committee took action on the bill. The fiscal note on SB 614 states that enactment of that bill would have an indeterminate impact on expenditures of the Judicial Branch.

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