Senate Judiciary panel hears industry, consumer split on bill to add texts to Oregon solicitation law

The Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee on April 24 heard testimony on House Bill 3,865 A, which would expand the state’s telephone solicitation statutes to include text messages and add limits on when and how often a business may initiate solicitations.

The bill’s committee overview states it would render certain text-message solicitations unlawful under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act and set permitted calling/texting hours between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m.; Representative Nathan Sosa, the bill sponsor in the House, told the committee the proposal also shortens Oregon’s current quiet-hours window from 9 p.m.–9 a.m. to 7 p.m.–9 a.m. and would cap solicitations at three per 24-hour period.

Why it matters: Supporters say the change would update decades-old statutes for modern messaging and give consumers additional tools against spam and scams. Opponents — including wireless-industry groups, messaging-platform vendors and former federal regulators — warned the bill’s mechanics could be impossible for lawful businesses to implement and could invite litigation.

Supporters’ testimony

Representative Nathan Sosa said unsolicited messages have grown and the bill “updates [telephone solicitation statutes] to include texting,” taking aim at increased scam texts and unwanted marketing. Leslie Wu, policy adviser to the Oregon attorney general, told the committee “there really has been a surge in the use of scam texts and spam texts” and outlined how Oregon’s current solicitation and auto-dialer statutes do not explicitly mention text messages.

Consumer groups pressed for the change. Andrea Meyer of AARP Oregon said older adults frequently report being “harassed by the sheer volume of these calls,” and Oregon Consumer Justice’s Angela Donnelly said the bill will “modernize our laws to keep up with ever changing technology.”

Industry and legal concerns

Industry witnesses described practical compliance problems. Kiara McPhee, chief product officer at PostScript, said the bill’s proposed quiet-hours rule — which limits solicitations by reference to recipients’ local time — is “practically impossible to implement with the level of accuracy required to avoid significant litigation risks” because carriers no longer share real‑time location metadata with third parties. Michael O’Riley (Michael Ryan in testimony), a former Federal Communications Commissioner, warned the bill risks overriding consumer consent established under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and could expose lawful businesses to suits.

CTIA (wireless industry) representative Sarah Ligon and the Oregon Cable Telecommunications Association’s Fawn Berry urged changes to avoid disrupting wanted, nonmarketing messages (utility alerts, fraud notices) and to harmonize definitions with federal law. Berry said the existing statute requires a “one-digit opt out” that must be clarified for texts, noting consumers typically send “STOP” to opt out of SMS.

Technical points and carve-outs

Witnesses and staff described distinctions within Oregon law between (1) the phone‑solicitation provisions that include a private right of action and (2) the auto‑dialer provisions that do not. Leslie Wu emphasized both statutes currently incorporate the Unlawful Trade Practices Act’s definition of a “person” and contain statutory exemptions for certain regulated entities (citing ORS 646.605’s definitions). Multiple industry witnesses flagged the “lead‑generator” issue: whether consent given in one transaction creates broad consent for related affiliates or third‑party marketers.

Next steps and record

The committee chair reminded witnesses that written comments could be submitted through the OLIS portal for 48 hours after the hearing posting. Multiple senators asked staff and DOJ to follow up with clarifications on consent carve‑outs and how the quiet‑hours rule would apply to consumers who travel or keep non‑local numbers.

Ending

The hearing closed with the committee continuing to solicit written follow‑up on technical points including: how to treat prior express consent, harmonization with federal rules, the auto‑dialer carve‑outs, and how the bill would apply to Rich Communication Services (RCS) and other emerging messaging technologies.