California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB3007

Introduced
2/21/20  
Refer
3/5/20  
Refer
3/5/20  
Report Pass
5/4/20  
Report Pass
5/4/20  
Refer
5/5/20  
Refer
5/5/20  
Report Pass
5/5/20  
Report Pass
5/5/20  
Refer
5/7/20  

Caption

Telecommunications: automatic dialing-announcing devices: call mitigation technology.

Impact

If enacted, AB 3007 would enforce several critical changes to state laws governing telemarketing practices. Among its directives, the bill mandates that customers have access to technology that helps mitigate the impacts of automatic dialing devices, enhancing their ability to avoid unsolicited contact. The requirement for telephone corporations to implement such measures signifies a shift towards greater accountability and responsiveness to consumer concerns regarding harassment from automatic calls. Furthermore, it explicitly allows individuals to take legal action against violators, which may deter unlawful practices further.

Summary

AB 3007, introduced by Assembly Member Chau, focuses on amending various sections of the Public Utilities Code about telecommunications, particularly concerning automatic dialing-announcing devices. The intent of this bill is to regulate these devices more strictly to ensure consumer protection against unwanted calls and excessive telemarketing practices. It seeks to revise definitions surrounding automatic dialing devices, extending the prohibition on their use in certain contexts, thereby safeguarding consumers' rights to revoke consent at any time, regardless of prior agreements. The bill aims to make telecommunication safer by cracking down on rogue usage of these technologies.

Sentiment

The sentiment around AB 3007 appears largely positive among consumer advocacy groups who support stricter regulations to protect individuals from harassing phone calls. However, the bill has received mixed reactions from businesses that might rely on such technologies for outreach. Supporters argue that these provisions are necessary to modernize regulation in the face of advancing technology and to align the law with consumer expectations for privacy and choice. Critics, however, stress the potential negative impact on businesses that engage in legitimate outreach campaigns, fearing that overly stringent regulations could curtail effective communication and lead to job losses within the industry.

Contention

A notable point of contention in discussions surrounding AB 3007 involves the balance between regulation and business operations. Proponents point to the consumer-centric aspects of the bill, emphasizing its role in enhancing privacy rights, while opponents worry about the implications for legitimate businesses that use these technologies lawfully. Furthermore, the requirement that consumers can revoke consent to receive these calls might be perceived as extending too far, encumbering businesses that require timely communication with clients, particularly in sectors like healthcare and services that are vital for public interest.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

NJ A1437

Requires telecommunications service providers to provide call mitigation technology to subscribers.

NJ A550

Requires telecommunications service providers to provide call mitigation technology to subscribers.

NC H936

Robocall Solicitation Modifications

CA AB2021

Solicitations: do not contact list.

CT SB01058

An Act Concerning Charitable Organizations, Telecommunications And The Attorney General's Recommendations Regarding Consumer Protection.

CA AB956

Telecommunications: automatic dialing-announcing devices: emergency alert notifications.

CA AB2906

Telecommunications: automatic dialing-announcing devices: pupil health and safety exemption.