To Prohibit Medical Professionals From Soliciting Injured Individuals; And To Set Penalties For A Violation Of The Prohibition Of Solicitation Of Injured Individuals.
HB1237 would create a new offense and civil-liability framework aimed at preventing medical professionals, and those acting on their behalf, from soliciting people who have recently been injured in an accident, disaster, or similar event for the purpose of providing treatment for those injuries. The bill defines solicitation broadly to include in-person, telemarketing, phone calls, text messages, internet communications, and direct messages. It allows two exceptions: solicitation is permitted if the medical professional already has a family or prior professional relationship with the injured person, or if the contact occurs more than 30 days after the injury-causing event.
The bill also makes a violation a Class D felony and declares any resulting payment agreement invalid and unenforceable. People or insurers who paid under such an agreement would be entitled to a full refund plus reasonable attorney’s fees, and the bill authorizes a private right of action for pecuniary losses with costs, attorney’s fees, and statutory damages of at least $500 or twice the loss, whichever is greater. It further states that violations are deceptive and unconscionable trade practices under Arkansas’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, allowing enforcement under that law as well.
HB1237 would amend Arkansas Code Title 17 by adding a new section regulating solicitation by licensed or certified healthcare providers and their agents. It would also interact with the Deceptive Trade Practices Act by classifying prohibited solicitation as a deceptive and unconscionable trade practice, while creating both criminal penalties and civil remedies. The bill could affect physicians, clinics, chiropractors, therapists, other healthcare providers, their employees or contractors, injured patients, and insurers that pay claims tied to allegedly improper solicitations.
The available voting history suggests the bill was controversial and not broadly supported, as it passed third reading by a narrow 40-36 margin. No committee transcript is available to show detailed debate, but the close vote indicates significant concern or disagreement among legislators. The bill’s supporters likely viewed it as a consumer-protection measure against aggressive post-accident solicitation, while opponents likely questioned the breadth of the restrictions and the severity of the penalties.
The main points of contention are likely the scope of the solicitation ban, the inclusion of modern communication methods such as texts and direct messages, and the criminalization of conduct as a Class D felony. Another likely issue is whether the bill goes too far by invalidating contracts, requiring refunds, and creating private lawsuits with attorney’s fees and statutory damages. Critics may also have concerns about how the law could affect legitimate outreach, advertising, or patient referrals, while supporters would emphasize preventing predatory targeting of injured people immediately after traumatic events.