Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves amendment narrowing hours for telemarketing calls into homes
Summary
The Utah House adopted an amendment that reduces allowable telemarketing hours in homes from a federal 8 a.m.–9 p.m. baseline to 9 a.m.–8 p.m. under state law; supporters called it a modest privacy protection, opponents warned it would hurt small businesses. Outcome recorded by voice vote; exact tally not specified.
Representative Morgan moved an amendment to restrict telemarketing calls into residences by changing the allowable calling hours, telling colleagues the change is a compromise meant to take one hour off each end of the day. “All I’m trying to do is just limit the hours,” Morgan said, framing the measure as a privacy protection for seniors, stay‑at‑home parents and the ill.
Opponents said the change would unduly burden small business. “This will cripple the business,” an opponent from the floor said, warning that insurance, banking, real estate and other industries would be harmed. Members debated whether the state could lawfully be more restrictive than federal law; Representative Morgan noted the federal Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 1994 sets a baseline but that several states have adopted more restrictive hours.
During questioning, members discussed alternatives for consumers to avoid calls: the House heard estimates from colleagues about the cost of telephone-company blocking services (cited in debate as $14 a month by one member and $6 a month by another). Morgan said the Division of Consumer Protection receives frequent citizen complaints about telephone solicitors and that the amendment was prompted by constituent complaints.
The chamber voted on the motion to amend by voice; the clerk recorded the result and the presiding officer said the adoption “will be so noted.” The transcript does not include a formal roll-call tally for the amendment.
After the amendment passed, members resumed discussion about whether to include Saturday or broader evening restrictions; the sponsor said she had considered weekends but accepted a narrower change to secure support. A separate motion to strike lines 20–24 (arguing the language overlaid federal regulation) was proposed and debated later in the session.
What’s next: The amendment was adopted on the floor by voice vote and will be incorporated into the bill as the legislature continues consideration. No specific implementation timeline or enforcement detail was recorded on the floor.
