02/19/2003 03:17 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 19, 2003
3:17 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 85
"An Act requiring certain consumer reporting agencies to provide
individuals with certain reports without charge."
- MOVED HB 85 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to electronic mail activities and making
certain electronic mail activities unfair methods of competition
or unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Act
enumerating unfair trade practices and consumer protections."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 85
SHORT TITLE:CREDIT REPORTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CRAWFORD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/07/03 0149 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/07/03 0149 (H) L&C
02/07/03 0149 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
02/19/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 36
SHORT TITLE:ELECTRONIC MAIL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GARA
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0041 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0041 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0041 (H) L&C, JUD
01/21/03 0041 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
01/27/03 0079 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER
02/12/03 0201 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HEINZE, MEYER,
MOSES,
02/12/03 0201 (H) KOOKESH, CROFT, CRAWFORD,
GUTTENBERG,
02/12/03 0201 (H) STEVENS, CISSNA, MCGUIRE,
KAPSNER,
02/12/03 0201 (H) GRUENBERG, WILSON, LYNN,
WEYHRAUCH
02/18/03 0232 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAHLSTROM
02/19/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 85, applauding the
bill's simplicity, but suggested adding credit scoring to the
bill because it is used to deny credit to consumers; spoke in
support of HB 36, noting the regulation of bulk commercial e-
mails will benefit employees, employers, and private citizens.
ED SNIFFEN, Assistant Attorney General
Fair Business Practices Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that the Department of Law sees no
legal problems with HB 85, saying that identity fraud was the
number-one consumer complaint in 2002; answered questions about
enforcement of HB 36 and noted how the bill does not hold
Internet service providers liable for spam broadcasts.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor of HB 36, explained the changes
in the proposed committee substitute (CS) and described how laws
from California and Washington were used in crafting the bill.
JESSICA CAREY GRAHAM, Legislative Chair
Anchorage Society for Human Resources Management (ASHRM)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of HB 36, describing the
problems caused in the workplace by spam received by business
employees; said the proposed CS more clearly gives employers the
right to take legal action on behalf of their workers.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-9, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:17 p.m. Representatives
Anderson, Lynn, Dahlstrom, and Crawford were present at the call
to order. Representatives Rokeberg and Guttenberg arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 85-CREDIT REPORTS
Number 0076
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 85, "An Act requiring certain consumer
reporting agencies to provide individuals with certain reports
without charge."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, sponsor of HB 85, explained that it
provides a free credit report to a consumer at the consumer's
request. The purpose is to protect people from so-called
identify theft. He said there's only one good way to protect a
person from identify theft, and that's to know what is on the
person's credit report. Six states presently have similar laws,
and another twelve states are considering legislation. The
majority of states will require free annual credit reports in
the near future. A regular credit report protects both the
business and the consumer by reducing fraudulent purchases. An
estimated 750,000 people are victims of identity theft each
year. He stated that this is the only effective way to reduce
that rapidly growing number.
Number 0249
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG), spoke in support of HB 85. He said he
appreciates the simplicity of the bill and the fact that it
protects both consumers and businesses that are hurt by identity
theft. He stated that Alaskan consumers need this tool to
protect themselves. He asked whether credit scores should also
be provided free to the consumer under HB 85. Credit scores and
credit reports are used to deny credit to people. He said it's
valuable for the consumer to know and to receive this
information, particularly if it's erroneous. The bill should
not pose an undue burden on credit companies because the report
is only issued once annually per customer.
Number 0398
ED SNIFFEN, Assistant Attorney General, Fair Business Practices
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law,
testified that his agency does not oppose this bill. He said it
is a good step in the right direction towards thwarting identity
theft, which in 2002 was the number-one fraud category reported
to the department. He said it's very difficult to stop identity
theft other than getting a credit report on a regular basis to
see if someone is using a person's information for illegal
purposes. He said the department did not see any legal problems
with the bill. Other states have adopted this kind of language,
and similar laws have withstood court challenges.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained why credit scoring is not
covered in HB 85. He said credit scoring was a separate issue
and should be dealt with in other legislation. This bill
addressed identify-theft, not how a person's credit score was
calculated or used.
Number 0525
CHAIR ANDERSON asked whether HB 85 will increase the cost of
credit reports to banks, credit unions, car dealers, or
insurance agents.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD responded that he hasn't heard that
similar legislation has increased the cost of credit reports to
businesses in other states. But he predicted HB 85 will save
businesses money by reducing the amount of fraud. It's
difficult for businesses to confirm the identities of their
customers, so they must write off their losses as a cost of
doing business. He said the only way to guard against this
fraudulent use of identities is by making it easy for people to
regularly review their credit reports.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked whether people can get credit reports on
line.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said there are no free credit reports
for Alaskan residents. The free online credit reports are a
promotion for a subscription service.
Number 0714
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG moved to report HB 85 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 85 was reported from the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 36-ELECTRONIC MAIL
Number 0745
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 36, "An Act relating to electronic mail
activities and making certain electronic mail activities unfair
methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices
under the Act enumerating unfair trade practices and consumer
protections."
Number 0750
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB
36, explained that 27 other states regulate junk e-mails; junk
e-mails are uninvited commercial messages commonly referred to
as spam. Every year Congress considers legislation to deal with
this issue, and every year it dies, so it's up to the states to
deal with unwanted e-mail. He explained that in drafting HB 36,
he used Washington [state] and California laws because they have
been tested and upheld in the courts. Unfortunately, he said,
HB 36 does not ban spam. A state cannot impose an outright ban
on commercial speech and have it upheld in the courts.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA testified that HB 36 requires anyone sending
out commercial e-mails to provide the recipients with an easy
way to have their addresses removed from the sender's database.
In addition, the sender must indeed remove the recipient from
the list. Refusing to do either of these actions is a violation
of the proposed law. House Bill 36 allows employers to enforce
the law on behalf of their employees. It also permits Internet
service providers to adopt privacy policies regulating spam and
allows them to file a legal action against businesses that don't
follow these policies.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that the bill is enforced under
Alaska's existing Unfair Trade Practices Act. Private citizens
and the attorney general's office have the right to enforce the
law. In many states, anti-spam laws can only be enforced by
attorney generals' offices, which are notoriously underfunded.
He stated that he has received letters of support from an
employers' association, the Alaska Public Interest Research
Group, GCI, an Internet service provider, and AARP. The people
who oppose these anti-spam bills do not voice their opposition
during the legislative process but instead challenge the laws in
court, he suggested.
Number 1032
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG moved to adopt proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 36, Version 23-LS0224\S, Bannister,
2/17/03, as the working document.
Number 1055
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for purposes of an explanation
of the proposed CS.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that GCI, an Internet service
provider and one of the bill's supporters, sent a [February 5,
2003] letter noting a minor, one-word typo on page 5, lines 15-
16, which has been corrected in the proposed CS.
Number 1125
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection.
Number 1134
CHAIR ANDERSON, hearing no other objection, announced that
proposed CS for HB 36, Version S, is adopted for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA identified one change in the Version S on
page 5, lines 13-16. Subsection (5) states that HB 36 governs
only commercial e-mails from senders with whom the person
doesn't have an existing relationship, e-mails that are sent
without the person's consent. Language was added on lines 15-16
to clarify whether the e-mail is solicited or unsolicited:
"unless the advertisement is sent at the request of or with the
express consent of the recipient."
CHAIR ANDERSON noted that the proposed CS is one and a half
pages longer than the original bill and asked for details on
other changes in Version S.
Number 1244
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that there are two significant
differences between this proposed CS and his original prefiled
bill. The original HB 36 used a feature from California law
that stated the subject line of commercial e-mail must contain
the label "ADV:" and the additional label of "ADLT" if the
content is adult. He said he removed this feature because if
various states have differing requirements for the subject line,
the bill would be vulnerable to constitutional attack. The
sender could successfully argue in court, "We can't possibly do
in the subject line what 50 different states require." He said
it's a good idea but not workable and opens the bill to attack
in the courts.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether there's a constitutional
problem with requiring identifiers in the subject heading of an
e-mail. He noted that this committee just passed out HB 82,
which required the "ADV:ADLT" label in the subject heading of
commercial e-mails with adult content.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that HB 82 works because it regulates
e-mail sent within Alaska. House Bill 36 regulates out-of-state
e-mail as well, and that's why his bill was written differently.
His bill does not require specific words to be used on the
subject line; it follows Washington [state's] lead, requiring
that the sender not use misleading words in the subject line.
He said it's not a burden on senders of e-mail to be truthful in
their subject heading line. The prohibition against sending an
e-mail with a misleading heading is on page 3, line 10: "(3)
contains false or clearly misleading information in the subject
line."
Number 1487
CHAIR ANDERSON noted that the Version S has a title change and
many of the sections are different. He asked for more
explanation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that committee members did not have
the opportunity to review the proposed CS before the meeting.
He asked about Section 4, which starts on page 5, line 27, and
which references uncodified law and the contingent effect of
Section 2.
Number 1619
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that Section 4 of HB 36 creates a
backup in case there's a constitutional problem with regulating
commercial e-mail too stringently. This bill went through a
number of versions as he tried to narrow down the possible
constitutional challenges. He said he wants to regulate out-of-
state e-mail because little commercial e-mail originates in
Alaska. Most of the bill follows the California model, which
regulates any e-mail that touches any equipment in the state en
route to the recipient. Representative Gara said he believes
the bill is valid as written, but if a court were to rule
against regulating out-of-state e-mail in this blanket way, then
HB 36 contains a clause that would revert to Washington
[state's] narrower approach. The contingent effect of Section 2
would regulate out-of-state e-mail if the senders had reason to
know they were sending it to recipients in Alaska. He pointed
to the example of an "Alaska.net" address that indicates an
Alaska Internet service provider. Sections 2 and 4 are fallback
provisions so that the law would remain in force if Section 1
were overruled by a court.
Number 1787
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that a second change in the
proposed committee substitute clarified that employers whose
employees receive e-mails at their work address can enforce this
law. House Bill 36 allows individuals and employers to enforce
the law.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he has never seen a bill
drafted in the manner of HB 36. He pointed out Section 2 on
page 5, lines 17-24, which states that AS 45.45.800-45.45.890
doesn't apply unless a person sends an unsolicited e-mail either
from a computer in Alaska or to a person with an Alaskan e-mail
address. Section 4 states that Section 2 doesn't take effect
until a court decision rules Section 1 of the law is
unconstitutional.
Number 1916
REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed that Sections 2 and 4 of the Version
S were unique and said he hoped the situation would never occur
in which they took effect. He reiterated that if a court held
that HB 36's regulation of junk e-mail was too broad, a narrower
approach would take effect.
CHAIR ANDERSON said HB 36, because of its many changes, will be
held over for additional public hearing.
Number 2024
JESSICA CAREY GRAHAM, Legislative Chair, Anchorage Society for
Human Resources Management (ASHRM), explained that she practices
employment law at the firm of Perkins Coie in Anchorage. The
Society for Human Resources Management is the world's largest
association devoted to human resources management; the Anchorage
chapter has 275 members in business, nonprofit organizations,
state, and local government. Her organization supports HB 36
for several reasons. She testified that the phenomenon of bulk
commercial e-mail has a significant financial and morale impact
on employers and employees in Alaska. Employers commonly have
no solicitation policies in place to try to limit the deluge of
advertisements. As a result, employees commonly get bombarded
with this kind of material from around the globe, with no means
of putting a stop to it. Because employees' e-mail addresses
are easily identifiable from a corporate web site, employers
become an easy target for this spam.
MS. GRAHAM said the second reason her group supports HB 36 is
because employers have limited control over the content and
dissemination of offensive e-mails. Many e-mails have adult
themes, and these e-mails can be circulated by employees who
think it is a joke. She said that one employee's idea of a
humorous adult e-mail can end up as evidence in another
employee's sexual harassment lawsuit. As human resources
professionals, ASHRM members are on the front lines of dealing
with employee issues and complaints, and this bill gives
employers another tool to limit this kind of material. She
pointed out the productivity costs associated with adult-theme
advertisements. She said her group strongly supports HB 36. As
an attorney, she said she supports the proposed committee
substitute version. She said she appreciates Representative
Gara's attempt to give employers standing to pursue these
complaints in court.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Graham to identify where in
the proposed CS an employer's standing is strengthened.
MS. GRAHAM replied that on page 4, lines 8-9, the proposed CS
states, "In this section, 'recipient' includes a business whose
employee receives the advertisement in the course of the
employment." She said she had sent an e-mail to Representative
Gara urging the inclusion of similar language.
Number 2189
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG), testified in support of HB 36. He said
HB 36 will be a great cost-saving measure for employees,
employers, and private citizens who are being bombarded on a
daily basis with unsolicited commercial e-mails.
Number 2223
ED SNIFFEN, Assistant Attorney General, Fair Business Practices
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, stated
that the department supports the concept of HB 36. He said his
department reviewed the bill for potential constitutional issues
and did not find any legal infirmities. He said that the
sponsor has done a good job of recognizing the limitations of
the Washington and California cases. His section within the
Department of Law would be responsible for enforcing complaints
brought under this bill. Complaints generated by telemarketing
and e-mail Internet problems are now equal in number to
automobile complaints in his office. He said he hopes this bill
will curb fraudulent e-mail practices.
Number 2278
MR. SNIFFEN replied to a question from Representative Guttenberg
about the meaning of the words "clearly misleading information
in the subject line" on page 3, line 10. He replied that a jury
would have to decide whether the subject line in an e-mail was
clearly misleading. "Clearly misleading" requires a higher
standard of proof.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether the words "assists in
the transmission" on page 3, line 16, apply to an ISP [Internet
service provider] that inadvertently transmits virus-infected
spam because it didn't use a strong enough virus protection or
Internet blocker.
Number 2355
MR. SNIFFEN replied that he didn't think the bill was intended
to make ISPs responsible for the transmission of viruses but
deferred to Representative Gara to discuss the intent of that
language.
TAPE 03-9, SIDE B
Number 2375
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that he intended that an Internet
service provider not be held liable for such conduct and
referred to the language on page 4, lines 10-12, which says
these laws "do not apply unless a person sends or causes to be
sent an unsolicited electronic mail advertisement ...." He said
he has considered narrowing that language even more to make it
clearer.
Number 2356
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the meaning of the words "an
intervening interactive computer service" in subsection (b),
page 3, lines 11-18.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that this section assures that
Internet service providers are not held liable if somebody uses
their lines or sends a virus over their lines. The bill is not
aimed at imposing liability upon Internet service providers.
The section on page 4, lines 10-24, limits who can be named in a
lawsuit. Representative Gara said he has asked a committee
member to present an amendment today that would tighten this
language. He asserted that HB 36 is aimed at people who send
bulk commercial e-mails.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the language on page 3,
lines 11-18, which says the Internet service provider does not
violate the law unless the ISP knows the sender is violating the
law. He said the word "unless" contradicts Representative
Gara's intent to hold only e-mail senders liable.
Number 2232
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that he agrees and would favor an
amendment that ended the sentence on page 3, line 12, after the
word "sender." If amended, the sentence would read, "An
intervening interactive computer service does not violate (a) of
this section by handling or retransmitting the message initiated
by a sender." He said, whatever the language on page 3, HB 36
on page 4 limits an Internet service provider's liability. He
noted for the record that one of the Internet service providers,
GCI, has reviewed the bill and is comfortable with it; GCI's
letter of support is in the bill file.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he does not like laws or bills that
are inconsistent. The result is more ammunition for lawsuits,
and the public is confused.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what happens if someone from another
country violates this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that HB 36 would not regulate the
junk e-mails that originate in other countries.
Number 2103
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what really changes for the
average person if HB 36 passes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said HB 36 gives the state and individuals
tools to get themselves off e-mail lists. The bill requires a
link, an e-mail address, and a local or toll-free phone number
to use to be removed from the sender's list. Many e-mails from
California now have these valid links, the result of that
state's legislation. If Alaska and other states follow the
other 27 states in cracking down on junk e-mails, eventually
there will be less of them. Of course, the law must be
enforced. If people thumb their noses at the law, hopefully the
bill's enforcement tools can be used against them.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Sniffen how HB 36 affects
interstate commerce. Typically, the person sending the spam
will be outside Alaska. He asked how Alaska will get
jurisdiction over that individual or company to pursue
prosecution, and whether a federal or state court would be used.
Number 1961
MR. SNIFFEN admitted that it is difficult to enforce many of
these laws when so many violators who are preying on Alaskan
victims are out of state. In HB 36, Alaska asserts personal and
subject matter jurisdiction over these violators if they are
conducting business within the state by sending e-mails to
Alaskan ISP addresses. For jurisdiction, a court case under HB
36 is a civil suit. The department can only go after money. In
that process, the department would sue people in state court,
get judgments against them, and then try to enforce these
judgments in whatever state the company happened to be located.
The department works with law enforcement agencies in other
states to get help with these efforts. On some occasions, the
department convinces the other states to bring actions in their
own state courts against these people for violating their own
state laws. Nine out of ten times, if the business is violating
an Alaska law, it's also violating the same law wherever it
happens to be.
Number 1877
MR. SNIFFEN responded to a request from Representative Rokeberg
to describe how the department works with another state to
enforce consumer protection laws. In one case, the Minnesota
AG's [attorney general's] office called, asking for help. A
person in Alaska was committing Internet fraud, selling things
on an Internet site, and taking money with no intention of
delivering the merchandise. The department referred the case to
the Alaska State Troopers, who made an arrest and stopped the
guy from further activity.
In another case, the Alaska Department of Law approached the
Florida attorney general's office about stopping someone from
sending unsolicited faxes to Alaska. Florida officials located
the company and sent it cease-and-desist letters. Once the
company knew the local agency was after it, it stopped sending
faxes to Alaska, and the Alaska Department of Law stopped
getting complaints. The department never recovered money or
judgments from the company, but it was able to stop the conduct.
Number 1810
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that HB 36 provides the private
right of action and asked Mr. Sniffen what legal path the
citizen would follow. And if the citizen has a solid case,
would the department recommend the person take a private action?
MR. SNIFFEN replied that private citizens are bound by the same
rules as the Department of Law, but citizens are given a few
more incentives. Citizens can get their full attorney fees,
which the state cannot recover, and unlike the state, private
litigants can recover treble damages. His office follows a
procedure in getting complaints. If the complaint is widespread
and affects a large number of people in Alaska, the department
reviews it for a potential investigation and lawsuit. Mr.
Sniffen said he tells consumers that if they need immediate
relief, they should hire an attorney and go after the violator
themselves. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive, he
said. In some consumer cases, the state can get penalties that
the private litigant cannot. Mr. Sniffen said it's very
difficult for the average mom-and-pop consumer to hire an
attorney because of the expense. Alaska's consumer protection
Act alleviates this barrier by allowing the recovery of full
attorney fees and treble damages. Mr. Sniffen said he talks to
many consumers who never file actions because they are
intimidated by attorneys or fear that it will be a lot of work.
He said his office can only encourage citizens so much.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted the language on page 4, lines 8-9,
which gives an employer standing to bring a legal action. He
asked if the word "includes" confuses or expands the term
"recipient".
Number 1635
MR. SNIFFEN replied that he reads "includes" as an expansion of
who is a recipient, that it covers employers with staff who
receive these junk e-mails. For example, as an employee of the
Department of Law, he receives 30 spam e-mails a day. The
Department of Law would be an employer under HB 36, so if it
wanted to bring an action against senders of those spam e-mails,
it could do so.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked whether there's a possible federal
solution.
Number 1561
REPRESENTATIVE GARA answered that a stringent federal solution
would be ideal, but legislation dies in Congress every year.
Existing federal and state laws already prohibit fraud in e-
mails, but they don't regulate general e-mail conduct.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked about the prospects of enforcing the new
law.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he agreed with the comments of Mr.
Sniffen. The department has to make choices about what cases it
takes. The Fair Business Practices Section has a very capable
but limited staff; they take the cases which they think can do
the most good for the public. That's also why HB 36 allows
private citizens to use the remedies under the consumer
protection Act. Most states do not allow the attorney general's
office and individual victims to enforce the law. Employers and
Internet service providers, who probably have more resources
than citizens, can also initiate legal action. He said nobody
is going to get rich off this law; remedies in the consumer
protection law are treble damages or a $500 fine, whichever is
greater.
Number 1391
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied to a question from Representative
Rokeberg about whether people bringing civil action have to
quantify the damages. If the consumer can quantify the harm,
the person is entitled to recover treble damages. The consumer
protection Act recognizes that in most cases of consumer fraud,
the actual damages are small, so the $500 fine is also
available. In other states that have the treble damages clause,
it serves as an incentive to get the business to start engaging
in proper conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that a $500 fine is not much of an
incentive for a citizen to bring a private cause of action.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said Alaska law changed several years ago,
adding the incentive of full compensation for attorney fees.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether many individuals could
file complaints, thereby running up higher fines.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that in the original bill, he
considered limiting the number of lawsuits to the first five or
ten cases. He said that approach was unworkable.
Number 1165
MR. SNIFFEN added that the consumer protection Act recognizes
that the fines and penalties are per violation. For an
employer, if 50 employees each received an e-mail, the potential
fine could equal 50 violations times $500. Case law recognizes
that the fine applies per transaction.
Number 1040
CHAIR ANDERSON said since several committee members are
cosponsors on HB 36 and have indicated that they don't
understand the changes in the proposed CS, he would hold the
bill. Therefore, it's not appropriate to discuss amendments at
this time. But he said he will hold open the public hearing
because there's strong evidence of public support for the bill.
He intends to bring it back before the committee after
conferring with members, perhaps next week.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA clarified that his cosponsors signed onto
this proposed CS for HB 36 and have seen the CS except for the
one-word change he described earlier.
Number 0870
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he fully supports HB 36 and will vote
for it when it returns to the committee. He said it won't
change the world, but it's a good step in the right direction.
CHAIR ANDERSON suggested that Representatives Guttenberg and
Rokeberg work with Representative Gara on a revised CS for HB 36
to bring back before the committee. [House Bill 36 was held
over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|