This bill, titled the “robocall prevention act,” substantially revises New York’s General Business Law provisions governing telemarketing and automated calling. It replaces older references to “automatic dialing-announcing devices” with broader robocall language, defines robocalls to include calls and text messages made using an automatic dialing device or an artificial/prerecorded voice, and generally prohibits robocalls to New York residents unless a narrow exception applies. The permitted categories include emergency calls, calls made with prior express consent, certain calls by labor organizations to members or their households, and additional categories that the Department of State may authorize by regulation.
The bill also adds new consumer protections and enforcement tools. It requires robocalls that use prerecorded voices to identify the caller and the nature of the call at the beginning and end of the message, prohibits misleading caller ID manipulation intended to defraud or cause harm, and bars calls to emergency lines, hospitals, nursing homes, adult care facilities, and similar protected numbers. It strengthens private and public enforcement by authorizing the Attorney General to seek injunctions and civil penalties, and by allowing consumers to sue for actual damages or $500 per violation, whichever is greater, with possible treble damages, attorney’s fees, and class action recovery.
A major new feature is the requirement that telephone service providers offer call mitigation technology free of charge to New York customers upon request. That technology must identify likely unwanted robocalls and block, divert, or otherwise prevent them from reaching the customer, and providers must also offer call blocking for calls and texts from a particular person upon request. The Department of State, in consultation with the Department of Public Service, must issue regulations and produce annual reports on illegal robocalls, provider implementation, delays, and recommendations for further protections.
The bill would amend existing state law in sections 399-p and 399-pp of the General Business Law, expanding the scope of prohibited conduct and increasing penalties for certain violations. It would also create new reporting obligations for state agencies and impose compliance duties on telephone service providers operating in New York, including those not otherwise regulated under the Public Service Law. In practical terms, the bill affects telemarketers, robocallers, telecom carriers, consumers, labor organizations, nonprofits, and government entities making emergency calls.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from formal debate or roll call history. Based on the bill’s text and caption, the measure appears strongly consumer-protection oriented and aimed at curbing a widely disliked practice, suggesting likely support from sponsors and consumer advocates. The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the robocall ban, the compliance burden on telephone service providers, the scope of exceptions for nonprofits and labor organizations, and the feasibility of implementing call mitigation technology across existing networks.
The bill would amend the General Business Law to broaden and modernize New York’s robocall restrictions, add a new free call-mitigation mandate for telephone service providers, and expand enforcement and damages provisions. It would also require the Department of State and the Department of Public Service to promulgate regulations and issue annual reports, affecting telecom providers, callers, consumers, and state enforcement agencies.
No committee discussion or voting history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or votes. On its face, the bill is framed as a consumer-protection measure against unwanted robocalls and appears intended to address a common public annoyance, which suggests generally favorable policy sentiment, though implementation and compliance concerns may exist.
Likely areas of contention include whether the robocall restrictions are too broad, how the bill treats labor organizations and nonprofit calls, and whether the Department of State should have discretion to authorize additional robocall categories. Telephone service providers may also object to the operational and technical burden of offering call mitigation technology at no charge, especially on existing network facilities where implementation may be difficult. Consumer advocates are likely to support the bill’s stronger penalties and private right of action, while industry stakeholders may focus on feasibility, cost, and potential overblocking of wanted calls.