DMA Politically Direct (Summer 2008): Summer 2008 State Report

August 27, 2008 — DMA continues to monitor and actively participate in state legislatures. Here is a sample of the key issues:

California

SB 1400, a bill introduced to update California sweepstakes law has passed the Senate, and is on the Assembly floor awaiting consideration. DMA, along with a group of other interested stakeholders organized by the California Chamber of Commerce, has been working on this bill since its introduction.

The bill still contains several problematic provisions, particularly an opt-in requirement for the selling of names or addresses of customers or participants related to a sweepstakes. The Assembly’s version of the bill is likely to be slightly amended to clarify a requirement concerning the use of “urgency” messages and to eliminate language regarding fees. However, DMA does not expect the opt-in provision to be modified.

AB 2059 passed the Senate and was sent to the Assembly for concurrence with Senate amendments. The bill regulates mailings that request express consent to receive telephone solicitations. It also requires that a person on the National Do Not Call Registry be given a notice that he or she may be contacted by a telephone solicitor even if the subscriber’s phone number is listed on the no-call list. The version of the bill on the Assembly floor has been amended to clarify a requirement concerning the use of “urgency” messages, but we do not expect the opt in provision to be modified.

The following information is correct as of August 12, 2008. SB 1400, a bill introduced to update California sweepstakes law has passed the Senate, and is on the Assembly floor awaiting consideration. DMA, along with a group of other interested stakeholders organized by the California Chamber of Commerce, has been working on this bill since its introduction. The bill still contains several problematic provisions, particularly an opt-in requirement for the selling of names or addresses of customers or participants related to a sweepstakes. The Assembly’s version of the bill has been amended to clarify a requirement concerning the use of “urgency” messages, but we do not expect the opt in provision to be modified.

New York

SB 8376 (companion bill to AB 11752), the Governor’s bill to fight identity theft, has been signed into law (Chapter 279). As passed, the bill authorizes the state Consumer Protection Board to establish a process for ID theft victims to receive assistance to resolve complaints. It also changes the security freeze law to stipulate that the consumer may make the freeze request in writing “with confirmation of delivery requested” or via telephone, secure electronic means, or other methods developed by the consumer reporting agency.

A consumer reporting agency will be required to place a freeze no later than one day after receiving a request, and to send written confirmation within five days of placing the freeze (present law allows 10 days). The consumer reporting agency must also temporarily lift a freeze within 15 minutes after receiving the request via telephone or secure electronic method.

Pennsylvania

HB 2551, the Do Not Mail Act, was introduced May 20, 2008, and directs the state Bureau of Consumer Protection in the office of the state Attorney General to establish a Do Not Mail list. The bill prohibits any person or entity from mailing any solicitation to a resident on the list. This bill has been referred to House Consumer Affairs Committee, but no action has been taken on it.

Michigan

A package of House bills was introduced this session to combat identity theft and to provide consumers with more information about data sharing and the ability to opt out. The bills underwent a series of amendments following introduction. As a result, instead of the prescriptive measures required in earlier versions, the bills now require businesses to have procedures and policies in place to address ID theft and data destruction/disposal. They also include a penalty for failure to establish such policies.

A nine-member ID theft commission is being formed to make recommendations to the governor, legislature, and the public on ID theft protection, and prevention. The bills no longer have the level of specificity as to how those requirements are accomplished. They are currently tied together, meaning that they all must pass or all fail. The package of bills is pending in committee.

Telephone Directory Distribution

States continue to find ways of regulating telecommunications. This session saw a series of bills regulating the delivery of telephone directories in Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Washington. Requirements in the bills ranged from opt-in to opt-out, to the creation of Do Not Receive registries for directories. None of these bills has passed.

# # #