Bill Seeks to Block Phone Solicitors

Fed up with annoying telephone solicitors who seem to time their calls to coincide with your dinner?

For millions of Californians whose privacy has been invaded by unsolicited telephone pitches, state Sen. Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont) is proposing a solution: an official government “Do Not Call Me” list.

“Surveys show that telemarketing interruptions are the No. 1 complaint of California consumers,” said Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, who is backing legislation by Figueroa to create such a list.

The bill, SB 988, would make it illegal for telephone solicitors to call anyone on the list to sell “any consumer goods or service,” offer a credit extension for personal services, sell financial investments or obtain marketing information.

Calls responding to a consumer request or response to an advertisement would be exempt.

Under the proposal, consumers who do not want telephone solicitations would be able to pay an initial $10 and $5 each subsequent year to register their phone numbers on the list.

The attorney general would compile the list and make quarterly updates available to businesses. Violators would be subject to a civil fine of $2,500 for each offense, in addition to possible misdemeanor charges. Individual consumers also could sue for fines, payment of attorney fees and other court costs.

The bill is strongly opposed by segments of California business, including real estate brokers, newspaper publishers, loan companies, insurance carriers, retailers and cable television operators.

The Senate Business and Professions Committee, which Figueroa heads, narrowly passed the bill in April. It failed in the Senate Appropriations Committee in mid-May, but the committee reconsidered its action and gave the measure tentative approval, pending final agreement on amendments that Figueroa has agreed to consider.

Modeled on laws in Florida and Georgia, the bill is supported by Consumers Union and the Congress of California Seniors as a protection of personal privacy and a safeguard against possible fraud. Figueroa said some senior citizens in her Bay-area district report receiving six or more nuisance calls daily at their homes.

Opponents of the bill testified that they favor the same protections but contend the bill overreaches. They said it would choke off business and unfairly block them from reaching customers with whom they have an established relationship.

They objected chiefly to the bill’s proposed ban against businesses contacting existing customers without the customers’ permission. Businesses argued that exemptions should be given in cases in which there is an “established relationship” between a firm and a customer.

Early on, bill collectors got an exemption and others asked for the same treatment.

For example, the California Assn. of Realtors warned that real estate brokers would be included in the bill’s definition of a telephone solicitor.

A real estate agent may make an occasional “cold call” solicitation incidental to other business activities, the association said, but agents “deserve different treatment than the obnoxious boiler room operator that makes calls at dinner time his or her stock in trade.”

Opponents also insist that existing state and federal laws regulating telephone solicitors are adequate, assertions that Figueroa rejects.

She maintains that current laws are aimed at protecting consumers against telephone fraud, whereas her bill would safeguard their privacy by keeping unwanted solicitors at bay.