Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House debates telemarketing bill’s scope and caller-ID masking, then ‘circles’ the measure

Utah House of Representatives · January 19, 1996
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Lawmakers debated a consolidated telemarketing and fax-solicitation bill that would adopt elements of federal law and state practice. Members questioned whether caller-ID masking and automated-dialer definitions are covered and raised First Amendment and administrative-enforcement concerns; the House moved to circle the bill for further work.

House members discussed a consolidated telemarketing/telephone-and-fax-solicitation bill intended to harmonize existing state provisions with federal rules and to create remedies for violations.

A member seeking clarification told the sponsor the bill’s text (chapter citation provided on the floor) appears to prohibit use of automated telephone dialing systems in some situations. In response the sponsor explained the bill’s definitions limit prohibitions to systems that connect the called number to a recorded message or an artificial voice and that individual, ordinary calls would not be inhibited: “It’s only prohibited if they start to record a message,” the sponsor said.

Representative (speaker 10) (identified on the floor) told colleagues he shared the annoyance with unsolicited calls and faxes but said he was concerned the bill posed a First Amendment problem and would delegate too much authority to administrative enforcement, with potential fines and adjudications handled by agencies rather than courts: “I think we’ve got a First Amendment problem here with this, and we also got administrative action, administrative fines and administrative decisions,” he said.

Members also raised the practical problem of masked caller identities and whether a statutory solution would be effective when many calls originate out of state. The sponsor acknowledged the masking issue is technological and that state statute would be limited in reach for out-of-state callers.

After floor discussion a member moved to circle the bill — a procedural action to set it aside for further work — and the motion carried (motion recorded on the floor).