Missouri committee hears bills to curb spoofed calls, allow businesses on no‑call list

Representatives Mitch Boggs (R‑District 157) and Travis Wilson (R‑District 106) presented two related bills — House Bill 564 and House Bill 509 — to the Missouri House Committee on Utilities, proposing criminal penalties for caller‑ID spoofing and a change to allow businesses to join the state no‑call list.

The bills, described by the sponsors as complementary, would add a new penalty for using a falsified phone number to make calls intended to defraud or harass and would give businesses the same ability that consumers have to register on the state no‑call list. "This is a bill that is meant to help business owners," Representative Travis Wilson said. Representative Mitch Boggs said his version seeks to "put a penalty" on spoofing and noted that his draft would classify the offense as a Class E felony.

Supporters who testified said the bills respond to everyday harm. David Kent, a registered lobbyist for the Missouri Bankers Association, told the committee that banks frequently are targeted when spoofers try to obtain account details and that the association supports the anti‑spoofing measures. Jared Hankinson of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce said appointment‑based small businesses can lose revenue from repeated nuisance calls and urged support for the no‑call list provision.

Committee members pressed sponsors on enforcement. Representative Koslow and other members noted that the Federal Communications Commission already has anti‑spoofing rules and that many calls are routed through out‑of‑country servers, complicating prosecution. Sponsors acknowledged the enforcement gap for calls originating overseas and suggested coordination with other states and the attorney general's office for domestic enforcement. Representative Boitco asked whether private civil suits might be a more effective enforcement tool than criminal penalties; sponsors said they would consider changes to strengthen enforcement and make penalties more practical.

Witnesses and committee members raised examples of the problem: sponsors and a constituent recounted receiving dozens of calls in a single day; one business owner described receiving 10–20 frivolous calls on a typical day and another reported about 30 calls between noon and a 7 p.m. meeting. Sponsors also described individual consumer harms such as repeated billing demands tied to spoofed accounts.

The committee heard no recorded motion or vote on either bill during the hearing. Members asked sponsors to circulate revised language addressing enforcement mechanics; the hearing concluded after proponents and opponents delivered testimony and members asked questions.

The hearing record will remain open for written testimony through the committee’s public submission process, and no final action was taken at the hearing.