Public hearing on requiring online businesses to provide permanent phone, email draws opposition from tech and business groups

Representative Paul Evans (House District 20) introduced House Bill 3255 in a public hearing, saying the measure would require an online business that does business in Oregon to maintain a permanent telephone number and electronic mail address so customers can contact the business and receive a timely response. Evans described the bill’s purpose as improving consumer access to live customer service, particularly for older Oregonians and people who have trouble with online-only interfaces: “If you wanna do business in Oregon, have somebody somewhere that can answer the dang phone,” Evans said.

Several technology and business groups testified in opposition. Rachel Wiggins Emery of the Technology Association of Oregon (TAO) told the committee TAO represents more than 500 tech and tech-enabled companies across Oregon and asked the committee not to advance HB 3255. She listed concerns including the cost to implement a staffed customer-service line, difficulty verifying callers (phone spoofing), security risks compared with secure web services, doubts about the feasibility of meaningful responses within a 24-hour deadline, and the secretary of state’s enforcement remedy (revoking authority to do business) as overly severe. “TAO respectfully request that the committee not advance this bill,” she said.

Peter Brown of TechNet and Derek Singston of Oregon Business Industry echoed the concerns, saying the measure’s prescriptive requirement for phone and email contact would impose disproportionate burdens on small and early-stage businesses, could discourage startups from operating in Oregon, and would be out of step with modern customer-service practices such as live chat. Brown said the bill “places a substantial administrative and financial strain on businesses operating predominantly online.” Singston noted the bill does not provide flexibility for business changes such as sales or consolidation and argued it is an overly prescriptive approach that ignores established chat-based solutions.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about definitions and scope, including whether platforms that host sellers (for example, marketplaces such as Etsy) or multi-vendor platforms would be responsible for customer contact. Witnesses answered that platforms likely would be considered the business responsible for customer service for transactions on their platforms, and they warned compliance could be complicated. Representative Gomberg and others raised the burden argument against prescriptive technology mandates; Representative Kotek (asked about Etsy) and others questioned operational particulars.

No formal action was taken; the committee closed the public hearing on HB 3255 after testimony.