Bill would add text messages to Oregon's solicitation rules; industry raises technical and enforcement concerns

Representative Nathan Sosa, state representative for House District 30, introduced House Bill 3865, a measure that would add text messages to Oregon's definition of telephone solicitation and align text messaging with the state's autodialer regulations. The bill as described at the hearing would require callers to identify themselves and the party they represent within the first 10 seconds of a call or in the main body of an initial text, limit sales‑call texts to between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m., and prohibit calling or texting more than three times in 24 hours. The bill would take effect on the 91st day following adjournment sine die.

Representative Nathan Sosa said the change is a modernization of existing telemarketing law to reflect how consumers receive solicitations today. "I am offered warranties on vehicles that I do not own. I am asked if I wanna sell property in states I've never visited," Sosa said, summarizing common consumer complaints and urging the committee to update statutes so they cover text messages.

Leslie Wu, policy adviser to Attorney General Rayfield with the Oregon Department of Justice, testified in support and described a DOJ amendment that would clarify how existing ‘‘auto dialer’’ statutes and telephone solicitation statutes apply to both calls and texts. Wu said the amendment would place quiet‑hours limits in the solicitation statute (the sales‑call rules) rather than in the auto‑dialer statute to reduce disruption for industry and ease implementation. She also noted enforcement authorities in current law: the auto‑dialer statutes allow the DOJ to seek civil penalties (testimony cited civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation) and the solicitation provisions carry separate civil penalties.

Consumer advocates from Oregon Consumer Justice supported the policy as a common‑sense modernization. "There must be a path towards justice," Chris Coughlin said, arguing the statutes have not kept pace with current communications technology and that adding texts would help consumers hold bad actors to account.

Trade groups and businesses warned the committee the bill's current definitions and some proposed requirements raise practical and compliance problems. Amanda Dalton of the eCommerce Innovation Alliance said many small and medium e‑commerce businesses use text messaging with consumers who have given prior written consent, and urged caution so the law does not sweep in legitimate, consented messages. David Carter, president of the eCommerce Innovation Alliance, filed technical concerns that other states' efforts had produced unintended consequences. Carter identified several areas of worry: whether the bill would reach newer message protocols such as RCS or IP messaging (for which the Federal Communications Commission has advised caution), whether identifying an individual sender by first and last name in the body of a marketing text is workable, and whether enforcing a 9 a.m.–7 p.m. quiet period is technically feasible because carriers and users move across state lines and retain numbers.

Industry witnesses also asked for clarity about multi‑message interactions. David Carter noted the bill's three‑messages‑per‑24‑hours limit did not describe whether an MMS with an image plus text counts as one message or more, or whether a business may respond to a consumer inquiry if that response would exceed the limit.

Fawn Berry of the Oregon Liability Reform Coalition said she could not comment on the bill's final form until amendments were released but cautioned against drafting provisions that would invite litigation over subjective factors such as whether a message's cadence, volume or diction is "comprehensible." "We would not wanna see that kind of thing litigated," Berry said, noting the potential exposure from UTPA minimum damages in class actions.

Committee members asked about exemptions. Representative Sosa and DOJ testimony said the bill as drafted (with the planned amendment) would exempt certain communications such as business‑to‑business calls, polls, and some charitable calls, and would preserve existing enforcement pathways under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Multiple witnesses said the patchwork of state rules and limitations of federal enforcement make enforcement against overseas bad actors difficult.

No final vote was taken at the hearing. The committee received testimony from the Department of Justice, consumer advocates, trade groups, and liability reform interests, and the chair closed the public hearing at the end of the panel.