Kansas House Bill HB2118

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/28/25
• Refer: 1/28/25
• Report Pass: 2/7/25
• Engrossed: 2/19/25
• Refer: 2/20/25
• Report Pass: 3/13/25
• Enrolled: 4/10/25
• Passed: 4/10/25

Caption

Requiring any person who solicits a fee for filing or retrieving certain documents from the federal government, the state, a state agency or a local government to give certain notices to consumers and providing that violation of such requirements is a deceptive act or practice subject to penalties under the Kansas consumer protection act.

Summary

HB 2118 regulates private businesses or individuals that charge fees to file documents with, or obtain copies or certified copies of, public records and certificates from the federal government, the state, state agencies, or local governments. The bill requires these solicitations to include clear disclosures that the offer is an advertisement, is not affiliated with any government agency, and does not require payment or action by the consumer. It also requires the solicitor’s name and physical address, directions for obtaining the service directly from the Secretary of State, and, for mailed solicitations, a prominent notice on the envelope stating that it is not a government document. The bill further prohibits solicitations from using formatting, deadlines, or language that could make the communication appear to be an official government notice or suggest a legal obligation. It defines covered conduct as a deceptive act or practice under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, making violators subject to the act’s remedies and penalties. The bill also specifies that proof of a consumer transaction is not required and excludes consumer-initiated communications and advertising to current or former commercial customers from the definition of solicitation.

Impact

HB 2118 adds a new consumer-protection disclosure and anti-deception framework for third-party document-filing and record-retrieval solicitations in Kansas. It supplements the Kansas Consumer Protection Act by treating violations as deceptive acts or practices, which expands enforcement tools and potential penalties against non-government entities that market these services. The bill affects private companies and individuals that send mailers or other direct advertisements related to certificates, public records, and filing services, while leaving government agencies and consumer-initiated contacts outside its scope.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have received broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition in the recorded votes. It passed the House overwhelmingly, passed the Senate with only one dissenting vote, and then the House concurred with Senate amendments unanimously. That voting pattern suggests the measure was generally viewed as a straightforward consumer-protection bill aimed at preventing confusion about government-related mailings and service offers.

Contention

The main point of concern addressed by the bill is the potential for private solicitations to resemble official government correspondence and mislead consumers into paying for services they can obtain directly from government offices. The bill’s supporters appear to favor stronger disclosure requirements and clearer warnings to prevent deceptive marketing. Any opposition, as reflected by the small number of no votes, likely centered on the scope of regulation over private solicitation practices or the added compliance burden on businesses, though no committee testimony is available in the provided record.