Missouri Robocall Bills Seeing Lawmaker Support, but Wireless Industry Has Concerns
With a quartet of bills pending before the Missouri House about unwanted calls, House Utilities Committee Chairman Robert Bromley (R) urged their sponsors Wednesday to work on a substitute, which he said he would then push to get through the committee. "Everyone is somewhat in favor" of the state doing more to tackle unwanted call issues, he said at a committee hearing. But while representatives of the three major wireless carriers expressed support for the general goals of the bills, they also raised concerns about a patchwork of state versions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act that sometimes conflict with the federal version of the law.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
State Rep. Mike Costlow (R) said there are sections of HB-2147, HB-2472, HB-2546 and HB-2658 that are similar to one another. They all attempt to improve the No-Call List maintained by the state attorney general’s office by extending its protections to business numbers, noted Costlow, who sponsored HB-2658. Currently, the No-Call List protects only residential numbers, and segmenting residential and business numbers makes little sense, he argued. HB-2658 also contains language that expands the AG's authority to go after calls made to Missouri numbers on the national do not call registry or to residents who inform the caller directly that they don't want to be called again, Costlow added.
Rep. Jim Kalberloh (R), sponsor of HB-2472, said he gets a frustrating number of unwanted calls that he feels compelled to answer in case it's from a constituent or involves his agritourism/corn maze business.
The bills also contain anti-spoofing language. HB-2472 and HB-2147 require the use of Stir/Shaken authentication standards and create a system of fines of up to $75,000, Costlow said.
Costlow acknowledged that Missouri's ability to tackle illegal robocalls is limited. The proposed legislation "goes as far as we can," and there's greater enforcement power and responsibility at the federal level.
Speaking in favor of the bills, Heidi Sutherland, vice president of policy for the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said businesses spend a lot of time answering unwanted robocalls, while spoofing hurts not only customers but the reputation of the spoofed business.
Patrick Fucik, T-Mobile's state government affairs director for the Midwest, said the wireless industry agrees that Missouri has an interest in protecting consumers from unwanted calls and texts. But the industry has "great concerns" about the creation of state automated call laws that don't conform with federal rules, creating "complicated challenges" for carriers, he said. Representatives of AT&T and Verizon echoed his comments.
Bromley asked at one point what the state could do to enhance federal enforcement efforts, saying it doesn't want to conflict with federal regulations. A wireless industry representative said that's still being figured out in conversations with state AGs. Asked if any part of the four bills would be preempted by federal law, Fucik said no.