Panel approves ban on in‑person solicitation of disaster victims for 48 hours; members debate impacts on genuine helpers

The Economic Matters Committee voted to move House Bill 1348 as amended, a measure that prohibits a contractor or a person acting on a contractor’s behalf from soliciting or attempting to solicit a disaster victim in person within 48 hours after the disaster and within 500 feet of the incident or the victim’s property. The packeted amendments add a five‑day right of rescission, require notice of the rescission right, limit penalties an owner might owe after rescission and alter definitions to align with the Maryland Home Improvement Commission.

Sponsor and supporters said the bill targets predatory actors who approach victims while they are vulnerable. “We don't want that. There's no reason you should be approaching someone while their house is on fire and they're holding their items to give them a card to try and sell them services,” one committee member said during debate, describing testimony that merchants and contractors had approached people at scenes of active fires or immediate disaster.

Committee members pressed on practical implications. Several members asked whether the prohibition would bar legitimate, good‑faith actors who might try to provide immediate help or services; legal counsel and a sponsor’s representative explained that the text distinguishes solicitation from provision of emergency services. Under the amendment, actions such as rescue or immediate life‑saving assistance are not considered solicitation; the prohibition targets in‑person sales pitches and pressure tactics. The sponsor also said contractors may still advertise by phone, email or leave flyers; the statute focuses on in‑person sales contact near an incident.

Members raised specific concerns about seniors and residents without telecommunications access: in some catastrophic disasters, phones and infrastructure are down and in‑person contacts may be the only way victims seek help. One delegate suggested making the measure enabling legislation for local governments rather than a statewide ban so counties and municipalities could tailor responses for local conditions.

Enforcement: Committee counsel said a violation would be an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act and subject to remedies available under that law. The amendment’s five‑day rescission period was described as a consumer‑protection tool to allow victims to undo rushed contracts entered under stress.

Outcome: The committee moved the bill as amended. Supporters said the measure protects vulnerable residents from high‑pressure, predatory sales after disasters; critics argued the 48‑hour, 500‑foot in‑person restriction could inadvertently prevent helpful, legitimate assistance in some settings.

Why it matters: The bill addresses recurring testimony about price‑gouging and high‑pressure repair contracts after fires, floods and storms. The balance between victim protection and access to legitimate emergency help was the central tension in committee comments.

Next steps: The measure was moved out of committee as amended and will proceed to the next legislative stage for consideration.