DIGEST
The digest printed below was prepared by House Legislative Services. It constitutes no part of the
legislative instrument. The keyword, one-liner, abstract, and digest do not constitute part of the law
or proof or indicia of legislative intent. [R.S. 1:13(B) and 24:177(E)]
HB 359 Engrossed 2021 Regular Session Hollis
Abstract: Allows the commissioner of the Office of Financial Institutions and the state attorney
general to enforce provisions of solicitation law against violators.
Present law prohibits a solicitor from using a lender's name, trade name, service mark, or trademark
in a solicitation for the offering of services or products to a consumer unless certain conditions are
met.
Proposed law retains present law.
Proposed law allows the commissioner of the Office of Financial Institutions to use the enforcement
powers granted to him in present law against a violating solicitor.
Proposed law provides that a violation of present law is considered a violation of the false
advertising provisions of present law and allows the state attorney general to enforce the appropriate
penalties provided in present law.
Proposed law provides that the commissioner is not required to prove actual damages when seeking
to enjoin a solicitor from unlawfully using a name, trade name, trademark, service mark, or loan
information, and provides that irreparable harm is to be presumed.
Proposed law allows the commissioner to be awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees if he
prevails against a solicitor in violation of proposed law.
Proposed law requires any action arising out of a violation of proposed law to be brought in the 19th
Judicial District Court.
(Adds R.S. 6:412.1(I) and (J))
Summary of Amendments Adopted by House
The Committee Amendments Proposed by House Committee on Commerce to the original bill:
1. Allow the commissioner to enjoin unlawful use of certain information without being
required to prove actual damages, and provides that irreparable harm is to be presumed.
2. Allow the commissioner to recover costs and reasonable attorney fees if he prevails in an action against a solicitor who violates proposed law.
3. Require an action arising out of proposed law to be brought in the 19th Judicial District
Court.