NY Legislation Would Allow Lawsuits, Civil Penalties to Curb Robocalls
The bill is about more than eliminating robocalls as a matter of inconvenience. It's also a measure to protect consumers from those callers, who often use robocalls in an attempt to defraud or harass individuals by trying to lure them into a scam or collect a debt, Hoylman said.
March 26, 2019 at 06:20 PM
5 minute read
Lawmakers in New York want to impose new penalties on companies and individuals that make unwanted robocalls to residents in the state, including a fine and the ability for individuals to sue those callers.
A bill making its way through the Legislature would prohibit those calls and give new power to the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James to impose penalties from $2,000 to $20,000 against individuals or entities who make unwanted robocalls, excluding emergencies.
It's sponsored by State Sen. Brad Hoylman and Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou, both Democrats from Manhattan. Hoylman said robocalls have been a frequent complaint from constituents, so he took it upon himself to sponsor legislation to try and solve the problem. Plus, like many others, he's had his own experience with constant robocalls.
“Personal experience, reaching the end of my tether from repeated calls and the realization that most New Yorkers have that the federal government hasn't managed to solve this problem so it's up to New York to step into the void and attempt to do it,” Hoylman said.
The bill is about more than eliminating robocalls as a matter of inconvenience. It's also a measure to protect consumers from those callers, who often use robocalls in an attempt to defraud or harass individuals by trying to lure them into a scam or collect a debt, Hoylman said.
“It really does shut down these repeated debt collector calls that happen to certain communities in the state, mostly vulnerable communities get repeated phone calls from debt collectors,” Hoylman said.
The legislation would require telephone service companies to make technology available to consumers free of charge that would block unwanted robocalls. The bill would, as a result, make unwanted robocalls to New York state residents unlawful under the state public service law.
It would also, importantly, provide a private right of action for individuals who want to sue companies or individuals who make unwanted robocalls. That lawsuit would be allowed as a way to either enjoin the entity from continuing to make those robocalls or award any damages that arose from those calls. There would be a four-year statute of limitations on those actions.
“Unwanted and predatory robocalls have long plagued New Yorkers and continue to surge in volume over the past few years,” Niou said. “Robocall scams have also become more advanced, targeting seniors or immigrants in their native language and defrauding them of millions of dollars.”
Hoylman said the legislation would apply to all robocalls made to any device — whether it's a landline or mobile phone. Commercial phone calls, such as those that seek to collect a debt or sell a product, would be immediately prohibited unless the recipient has previously consented to that contact.
But a user may not immediately know that they offered consent at some point if they didn't read the fine print of an agreement, such as a car loan, Hoylman said. The legislation would allow consumers to revoke that consent.
“In the terms of consent, the most common example is a debt collector,” Hoylman said. “Probably in the fine print of your loan agreement, you consented or it could be argued that you consented to this type of contact. So, our bill means that you can revoke that at anytime.”
If a company or individual unlawfully robocalls an individual in New York, the state attorney general's office would be able to impose a civil penalty of up to $2,000 for that violation. If they continue to make those robocalls to the individual, the attorney general's office would be able to impose additional penalties for each call up to a total of $20,000.
The legislation also gives the state Public Service Commission, which regulates telecommunications, discretion to decide what noncommercial robocalls may be allowed to residential lines. It will be up to the agency, for example, to decide if political robocalls should be allowed, Hoylman said.
“The bill prohibits all robocalls both to cellphones and landlines without express consent but allows the PSC to exempt calls to residential telephone lines that are not made for commercial purposes, which could allow political, charitable, or membership calls to be made to landlines,” Hoylman said.
The bill, if passed, would take effect 30 days after it's signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo. It passed the Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee on Tuesday.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Remembering Ted Olson
- 2Support Magistrates: Statutorily Significant
- 3Nelson Mullins, Greenberg Traurig, Jones Day Have Established Themselves As Biggest Outsiders in Atlanta Legal Market
- 4Immunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
- 5Monday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250