Telemarketing Bills Are Introduced In Texas
Two identical telemarketing bills have been introduced in the Texas House and Senate. The measures address several aspects of telephone soliciting. Most importantly, they establish a statewide “do not call list” and change the requirements for telemarketers to register with the state. Also covered are calling hours, the use of automatic dialing announcing devices and requirements for telemarketers to identify themselves.
Introduced Tuesday, House Bill 537 was authored by Rep. Debra Danburg, a Democrat from Houston, while Senate Bill 120 was authored by Gonzalo Barrientos, a Democrat from Austin.
The “do not call” list, or “no-call list” in the Texas parlance, is to be maintained by the state Public Utility Commission. Consumers can sign up for free but must do so annually. Telemarketers who call those listed face a penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation.
The bills also eliminates many of the exemptions from the state’s registration requirements for telemarketers, while at the same time simplifying the information required.
In December, the Texas House telemarketing subcommittee, which made recommendations similar to those contained in the recently introduced legislation, determined that the myriad exemptions and data requirements contributed to the fact that, as of January 1998, only 24 telephone solicitors had registered. The subcommittee’s report also recommended raising the bond requirement of $10,000, but the bill maintains the original amount.
Chet Dalzell, spokesperson for the Direct Marketing Association, said that the industry does not oppose registration requirements, but that the “do not call” list was superfluous because of federal law that already mandates companies to maintain such lists.
Dalzell said that Texas is a big telemarketing state. According to a DMA-sponsored study by the WEFA Group, “Texas-based businesses use telemarketing to generate $35 billion in goods and services annually,” he added.
The subcommittee report said the DMA’s telephone preference list was inadequate because relatively few telemarketers–and even fewer fraudulent ones–belong to the DMA.
