Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/21/2003 02:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 82 - COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL [Contains brief mention of HB 56.] Number 0992 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 82, "An Act making certain activities related to commercial electronic mail unlawful as unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Act enumerating unfair trade practices and consumer protections." [Before the committee was CSHB 82(L&C).] Number 1024 REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained that the L&C version differs from the original in that it focuses only on unsolicited commercial electronic mail that contains explicit sexual material, which, he opined, is probably the most of annoying, offensive, and harmful type of unsolicited commercial e-mail. HB 82 does not prohibit such e-mail; instead, it merely requires that the subject line of the e-mail contain "ADV:ADLT". He relayed that this specific subject title is currently required by nine other states, and posited that it could perhaps become a standard title for all states that institute such a requirement. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER mentioned that although others refer to HB 82 as a consumer protection bill, he himself refers to it as a children's protection bill. By requiring such a title, it will become easier for parents to ensure that their children are not exposed to sexually explicit material, either by teaching their children not to open e-mails that contain that title, or by having their computer systems automatically filter such e-mails out. He pointed out that the standards being proposed for unsolicited commercial e-mail are no higher than for any other method of delivering sexually explicit material, whether mailed through the United States Postal Service, or made available through stores. He made the suggestion that if enough states address "this issue," the federal government will be forced to do so as well with regard to what comes into the U.S. from other countries. CHAIR McGUIRE closed the public hearing on HB 82. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how this is policed, and what the penalties are for violating this proposed statute. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER relayed that the attorney general's office would oversee "the policing of this," and so parents could bring instances of violations to that office. He mentioned that it would be possible to track this type of e-mail back to its source. He also noted that an individual could take private action to recover $500. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the burden of proof for a private action would be different from what would be required in an action brought by the state. Number 1377 CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General, Fair Business Practices Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), said that the burden of proof would be the same, whether for a private action or for an action brought by the attorney general. With regard to penalties, he explained that if the attorney general's office pursues someone, it has authorization to seek penalties of up to $5,000 for every violation of the statute, and every transaction would be considered a separate violation. Thus, if there were 100 e- mails, for example, that could total up to $500,000 if the court so determined. If, on the other hand, a private individual brings forth an action, he/she could get [the greater of] either $500 or treble actual damages. He surmised, however, that it could be very difficult to prove that actual damages occurred from an e-mail, unless a virus or something of that nature were attached. MR. SNIFFEN also noted that with regard to consumer protection issues, private litigants could recover full attorney fees. This, however, is not true for the state; if a similar action is brought by the state, it can only recover a portion of its attorney fees, as stipulated by [Civil Rule 82 of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure]. In response to further questions, he indicated that having that stipulation changed via legislation would be helpful to the department, both the purpose of raising revenue, and for the purpose of protecting consumers. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested making such a change to HB 82. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER stated his preference that such a change not be included HB 82. He surmised that $5,000 per violation would be sufficient to cover most of the state's expenses in such actions. REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that one of his bills [HB 56] makes just such a statutory change to [Civil Rule 82 of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure]. He recommended that the committee simply wait for that bill, which will allow the attorney general's office to recover its full, reasonable attorney fees in consumer protection cases. He then commended Representative Meyer for his work on HB 82. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON relayed that as chair of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, he did not see any problems with HB 82. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted that Representative Gara also has "a very good bill" pending that will focus on other types of unsolicited commercial electronic mail. Number 1747 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report CSHB 82(L&C) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 82(L&C) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|