04/02/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY

HB 182 - OFFERING PROMOTIONAL CHECKS                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:46:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  182,  "An  Act making  the  offering of  certain                                                               
promotional checks an unfair or deceptive act or practice."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:46:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM  moved to  adopt the  proposed committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)  for  HB 182,  Version  25-LS0650\M,  Bannister,                                                               
3/22/07, as the work draft.   There being no objection, Version M                                                               
was before the committee.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN,  speaking  as  the  sponsor,  said  HB  182                                                               
pertains  to [promotional]  checks, usually  written for  no more                                                               
than $3  or $4,  but which  are actually  contracts that  go into                                                               
effect once the  checks are cashed.  For example,  last year, the                                                               
Department of Law  (DOL) settled a lawsuit  against a California-                                                               
based company  that had sent  Alaskans what appeared to  be small                                                               
rebates  but  which  were  in   fact  contracts  for  advertising                                                               
services valued  at $179.  House  Bill 182 will prohibit  the use                                                               
of  such  checks,  which, he  relayed,  the  consumer  protection                                                               
section  of the  DOL  considers to  be a  classic  example of  an                                                               
unfair,  deceptive  act or  practice  as  defined in  state  law.                                                               
Passage of HB  182 will allow the DOL to  take enforcement action                                                               
on such practices,  and companies that violate  this proposed law                                                               
will be subject to a civil  penalty of between $1,000 and $25,000                                                               
per violation.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:52:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CLYDE   (ED)   SNIFFEN,    JR.,   Assistant   Attorney   General,                                                               
Commercial/Fair  Business  Section, Civil  Division  (Anchorage),                                                               
Department of  Law (DOL), said that  the DOL is pleased  that the                                                               
sponsor has introduced  the bill, which he  characterized as good                                                               
legislation.   He mentioned  that the DOL  does have  examples of                                                               
consumers in  Alaska who have  been harmed by  the aforementioned                                                               
practice.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  whether  the word  "check" -  as                                                               
used on page 1, line 5 - is broad enough.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  SNIFFEN offered  his  belief that  it  is, particularly  for                                                               
enforcement  purposes, and  that everyone  understands what  that                                                               
term  means, though  he acknowledged  that  the term  "negotiable                                                               
instrument" could be used in its  stead.  In response to comments                                                               
and  another question,  he opined  that the  current language  of                                                               
Version M - which his office drafted - is sufficient as is.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS, after  ascertaining  that no  one  else wished  to                                                               
testify, closed public testimony on HB 182.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:54:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved  to report the proposed  CS for HB
, Version  25-LS0650\M, Bannister,  3/22/07, out  of committee                                                               
with individual recommendations and  the accompanying zero fiscal                                                               
note.  There being no  objection, CSHB 182(JUD) was reported from                                                               
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.