/>iDo you remember a few years back Michigan had this huge telemarketing bill it was trying to push through well guess who’s back, back again, Michigan is back, tell a friend….
Check out this blog because all the key points are laid out for you beautifully by the Czar and this bill is a beast!
The original bill was introduced during the 2021-2022 legislative session but did not progress and died as a result. This bill was introduced or reintroduced yesterday and is currently in the Committee review stage, it still has a way to go but just in case this one can go the distance here is what is different from the first version.
Michigan revisited and expanded on the definition of “Express Verifiable authorization” in the current version to mean a written agreement that includes all of the following:
(i) A signature of the subscriber being called. As used in this subparagraph, “signature” includes an electronic or digital signature, if the form of signature used is a valid signature form under federal law or another law of this state.
(ii) Clear authorization that the telephone solicitor may deliver or cause to be delivered a telephone solicitation to the subscriber using an ADAD, a recorded message, or a prerecorded voicemail.
(iii) The telephone number to which the subscriber authorizes a telephone solicitation to be delivered.
(iv) A clear and conspicuous disclosure that informs the subscriber of both of the following:
(A) By executing the agreement, the subscriber authorizes the telephone solicitor to deliver or cause to be delivered a telephone solicitation to the subscriber using an ADAD, a recorded message, or a prerecorded voicemail.
(B) The subscriber is not required to directly or indirectly sign the written agreement, or to agree to enter into the agreement as a condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services.
Slights change to the definition of “Telephone Solicitation” one of them being the original bill included political organization under the definition of “Telephone Solicitation”, however, the current version does not include political organization within the definition of “Telephone Solicitation” or in any other area of the bill as the prior version did including removing the definition of “Political Organization” altogether.
The majority of SB1037 tracks very close to the original bill HB6307 including keeping the following:
- Shall not make a telephone solicitation using a recorded message in whole or in part
- Shall not include the telephone number of a residential telephone subscriber that is on the most current version of the do-not-call list in a lead generation.
- Telephone solicitor states the telephone solicitor’s true first and last name and the full name, address, and telephone number of the organization or other person on whose behalf the call is initiated.
- Cannot use an ADAD for a telephone solicitation to vulnerable numbers or those listed on the DNC.
- Cannot make a telephone solicitation before 9 AM or after 8 PM unless you have express verifiable authorization.
As mentioned in the Czar’s previous blog the civil fines remain in place as well up to $25,000 per violation and noted that a singular telephone communication may generate multiple separate violations. You will find steep fines with vulnerable individuals from $50,000 to up to $75,000 per violation and you guessed it a singular telephone communication could generate multiple separate violations!
