Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Telemarketing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House passes state telemarketing rules, bans blocking of Caller ID and tightens disclosures

Utah House of Representatives · January 28, 1998
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

The House approved HB44 to bring telemarketing protections into state code, requiring callers to identify themselves, prohibiting Caller ID blocking, restricting hours and addressing prisoner‑run operations; several wording amendments were adopted before passage 69–0.

The Utah House of Representatives on Jan. 28 unanimously approved HB44, a bill to codify state telemarketing requirements that largely mirror federal rules but create a state‑level enforcement avenue for residents.

Sponsor Representative Lowell A. Nelson explained that the bill adopts key protections — including a prohibition on blocking caller‑ID, a requirement that telemarketers identify themselves and the purpose of the call, and limits on solicitation hours — to give Utah citizens direct recourse rather than relying solely on federal mechanisms. Nelson said the bill is "a constituent bill" and intended to protect residents from anonymous or predatory calls.

Floor amendments were made to replace the word "immediately" with "promptly" in at least one paragraph to clarify timing expectations and to add the phrase "promotion of" after "purchase" to address creative solicitation techniques that present as non‑sales calls but in substance promote products or services. Representative Tanner questioned whether the "promptly" change could be interpreted in ways that would undercut protections; the sponsor said the edits improved clarity. Members also clarified language governing the use of inmates in telephone‑soliciting operations so prisoners would not have access to personal identifying data; the sponsor said staff and supervisors handle orders and prisoners do not receive person‑identifying information.

Representative Hendricks registered a conflict of interest on the floor owing to involvement in telemarketing business (so noted in the record). The House adopted the committee report and passed HB44 by recorded vote, 69 yes to 0 no, and forwarded the bill to the Senate.

HB44 also assigns enforcement and privacy provisions at the state level, and sponsors said the measure preserves the ability of state agencies to handle complaints without requiring citizens to navigate federal bureaucracy.