Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/15/2006 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB446 | |
| HB377 | |
| HB312 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 312 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 377 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 446 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 478 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 232 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 446
An Act relating to the amount of a civil penalty for an
unlawful act or practice in the conduct of trade or
commerce.
1:44:58 PM
CRAIG JOHNSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LESIL MCGUIRE,
testified that the Federal Trade Commission recently
reported that Alaska topped the nation in fraud complaints
last year with 249 per 100,000 people. Unfortunately,
Alaska's current consumer protection laws provide one of the
lowest civil penalties of any state. To strengthen Alaska's
consumer protection law and send a message to those who prey
on Alaska consumers, HB 446 acts to increase civil penalties
authorized under Alaska's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Act.
Under current law, when a person or company violates an
injunction prohibiting unfair or deceptive business
practices, they are subject to a maximum penalty of $25,000.
HB 446 would increase that maximum to $50,000.
Mr. Johnson continued, current law provides for a $5,000
civil penalty for each violation. The bill increases that
amount to a range between $1,000 and $25,000 per violation.
The current $5,000 penalty was established in 1970. By
adjusting for inflation alone, the penalty should be
$20,200. Obtaining injunctive relief and civil penalties
are the tools that enable the attorney general to protect
Alaska consumers against unfair and deceptive trade
practices. The changes are vital enforcement tools and a
court assesses all civil penalties after a violation has
been proven. All penalty payments go directly to the State
of Alaska.
1:47:21 PM
Co-Chair Chenault inquired why the $5,000 penalty had been
dropped.
1:48:58 PM
ED SNIFFEN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, FAIR BUSINESS SECTION, CRIMINAL SECTION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, explained that there are a
number of cases involving violation of the act that warrant
some-kind of penalty. He provided an example of a business
engaging in advertising violations but not realizing there
has been some kind of violation causing consumer harm.
However, in that type of case, the Department of Law works
with the business to provide a meaningful penalty less than
$5,000. Then the Department gets the business to change
their practices so that future violations do not occur and
those are the cases where fewer penalties are warranted.
1:50:27 PM
Representative Hawker referenced the fiscal notes, pointed
out increased penalties and thought the note should indicate
that.
Mr. Johnson hoped the note would be neutral, and would keep
business from violating the law. It may be a bill that does
nothing; with relationship to consumer fraud, doing nothing
is a good thing.
Representative Hawker asked how the fines were accounted for
and which department would be indicating the note from fines
collected.
Mr. Sniffen advised that the funds collected by the
Department for civil penalty efforts go to either the
general fund or are earmarked to be used by the consumer
agency for future consumer protection education and
enforcement. The reason that a positive fiscal note cannot
be identified is because the Department does not know what
kind of activity might occur. Some cases do provide a
windfall into the State's general fund.
1:53:15 PM
Representative Hawker thought it would be more appropriate
to have an indeterminate note from the Department of Law.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed.
1:53:42 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED a conceptual change to the
Department of Law's note changing it to indeterminate for
all years indicated. There being NO OBJECTION, the change
was made.
1:54:33 PM
Representative Joule recommended that the indeterminate note
be indicated in the Department's budget next year.
Co-Chair Chenault commented that their office would attempt
to track some of the indeterminate notes.
Vice Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CS HB 446 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Hawker did not think that the Alaska Court
System note would be affected.
There being NO OBJECTION, the bill moved from Committee.
CS HB 446 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a new indeterminate note by the
House Finance Committee for the Department of Law and zero
note #1 by the Alaska Court System.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|