California Assembly Bill AB1132

California 2019-2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/21/19
• Refer: 3/25/19
• Report Pass: 3/25/19
• Refer: 3/26/19
• Report Pass: 4/10/19
• Refer: 4/10/19
• Report Pass: 4/23/19
• Refer: 4/25/19
• Report Pass: 5/8/19
• Engrossed: 5/20/19
• Refer: 5/20/19
• Refer: 5/29/19
• Report Pass: 6/18/19
• Refer: 6/18/19
• Report Pass: 6/21/19
• Refer: 6/21/19
• Report Pass: 7/3/19
• Refer: 7/3/19
• Refer: 8/12/19
• Report Pass: 8/30/19
• Enrolled: 9/10/19
• Chaptered: 10/2/19
• Passed: 10/2/19

Caption

Telecommunications: caller identification fraud.

Impact

The provisions of AB 1132 make it illegal to enter or use false government information in caller identification systems, establishing civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation. This aligns with federal regulations under the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, reinforcing efforts at both state and federal levels to combat fraudulent practices that exploit the trust placed in government entities. The enforcement mechanisms include actions by city attorneys, district attorneys, or the Attorney General, providing avenues to address violations effectively.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 1132, which adds a section to the Public Utilities Code pertaining to telecommunications, specifically targets caller identification fraud, particularly the practice known as 'spoofing.' Spoofing involves the use of false caller identification information, often misleading recipients by suggesting that calls originate from government sources. The bill aims to protect the integrity of governmental communications and safeguard consumers from fraud.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding AB 1132 appears supportive, as it seeks to enhance consumer protection and combat fraudulent activities that have increasingly become problematic in telecommunications. Stakeholders, including consumer advocacy groups and government officials, have expressed approval for the bill’s intent to maintain public trust in government communications. However, while the sentiment is largely positive, there are concerns about the practical enforcement implications and the potential for unintended consequences in legitimate telecommunication practices.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the balance between enforcing these regulations and allowing for legitimate uses of caller identification, particularly for entities that may need to block or withhold their information for security reasons. The bill, while focused on protecting consumers, may raise questions regarding the implications for legitimate businesses and their ability to operate without being unfairly burdened by regulatory challenges. Additionally, there may be discussions around the effectiveness of civil penalties as a deterrent.