Committee hears anti‑spoofing, business no‑call bills after sponsors describe fraud, time lost

The House Committee on Utilities heard House Bills 509 and 564 on telecom spoofing and no‑call protections, sponsors said, during a public hearing that drew industry and consumer representatives.

Rep. Mitch Boggs, sponsor of HB 564 and representative of District 157, told the committee the bill "puts a penalty upon people that are spoof calling," describing calls that use local area codes to dupe recipients. Rep. Travis Wilson, sponsor of the companion measure and representative of District 106, said HB 509 would "allow[] [businesses] to join the no call list," and described business owners who lose work time to repeated calls.

Why it matters: Witnesses said spoofing and telemarketing undermine small businesses and create fraud risk for banks; the bills would create a statutory penalty and expand the no‑call protections to business phone numbers. Committee members asked whether criminal penalties would be enforceable when calls originate outside the United States and whether civil remedies would be more effective.

Discussion and key details: Committee members focused on enforcement and penalty structure. Rep. Boiko urged consideration of private civil actions, saying "getting private litigants to bring civil cases would be more effective." Rep. Koslow noted existing federal rules and enforcement difficulty, saying the Federal Communications Commission already has "pretty strong anti spoofing" regulations that are "very hard to enforce." Rep. Boggs and Rep. Wilson said they were open to tightening or tailoring penalties and to coordinating with the attorney general and other states when calls originate outside the U.S.

Witnesses who testified in favor: David Kent, registered lobbyist for the Missouri Bankers Association, said, "Banks are often utilized as a tool, for spoofers to gain access to account details, credit cards." Jared Hankinson of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce said he supported the no‑call provision, adding that frivolous calls impose compounded time losses for appointment‑oriented small businesses. Sponsors and supporters repeatedly asked the committee to consider penalty levels and enforcement mechanics.

Numbers and examples offered in testimony: sponsors and witnesses gave multiple practical examples—one small business owner told Rep. Wilson he might receive "anywhere from 10 to 20" frivolous calls on a typical day; another person reported "30 some calls from noon that day to the time of that meeting." Sponsors discussed a range of penalty options, including class E felony language in one draft and lesser penalties in another draft; exact statutory citations and final penalty levels were not specified in testimony.

Process notes and next steps: Committee chair asked for brief witness statements and closed the hearing after hearing supportive testimony. The chair reminded participants that written testimony may be submitted electronically and that committee rules permit witnesses to file written testimony through midnight the night of the hearing.

Ending: The committee concluded the hearing on House Bills 509 and 564 after taking multiple public and industry witnesses; no formal vote was taken at the hearing.