To enact sections 4113.87, 4113.88, 4113.89, 4113.90, 4113.91, and 4113.92 of the Revised Code to enact the Consumer Protection Call Center Act regarding the eligibility of employers that relocate a call center to a foreign country to receive state grants, loans, and other benefits.
HB349, titled the Consumer Protection Call Center Act, would create new state-law requirements for employers that move call center operations from Ohio to a foreign country. It defines covered employers as businesses with 50 or more employees in customer service or back-office operations, and requires advance notice to the Director of Job and Family Services at least 120 days before relocating a call center or a significant portion of one overseas. Failure to provide notice would trigger referral to the Attorney General and expose the employer to civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day.
The bill also directs the state to maintain a public-facing administrative list of employers that relocate covered call center operations abroad. Employers on that list would be barred for five years from receiving state grants, guaranteed loans, tax benefits, or other economic incentives, and the Department of Development would seek repayment of the unamortized value of certain benefits already received. A waiver process is included if the employer can show that denying the aid would cause substantial job loss, environmental harm, or significant economic impact in Ohio.
In addition, HB349 would require state agencies to ensure that their own call center and customer service work is performed entirely within Ohio, and would prohibit contractors doing that work for the state from using out-of-state workers, with a two-year phase-in for existing contractor employees. The bill expressly states that it does not authorize withholding workers’ compensation, unemployment, or similar benefits from employees of employers that relocate overseas.
The bill’s impact would be to add a new enforcement and incentive-disqualification framework to Ohio law, centered in the Department of Job and Family Services, the Department of Development, and the Attorney General. It would affect large employers with call center operations, state agencies that contract for customer service work, and businesses seeking state financial assistance or tax incentives after offshoring call center functions. It would also create a new statutory policy favoring in-state performance of government call center work.
The available context shows no recorded votes or committee testimony, so there is no documented debate history in the materials provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears designed to protect Ohio call center jobs and state contracting work, and its general tone is regulatory and protective rather than permissive. Likely points of contention include the burden of the notice requirement, the five-year loss of incentives, the repayment provision, and the mandate that state and contractor customer service work remain in-state, especially for employers that argue relocation is necessary for cost, staffing, or operational reasons.
HB349 would enact new sections 4113.87 through 4113.92 of the Revised Code, creating notice, reporting, penalty, and incentive-disqualification rules for employers that relocate call center operations from Ohio to a foreign country. It would also impose new requirements on state agencies and their contractors to keep call center and customer service work within Ohio. The bill would affect the Department of Job and Family Services, the Department of Development, the Attorney General, state agencies, large employers in customer service/back-office operations, and recipients of state grants, loans, tax benefits, or other economic incentives.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislators in the available materials. The bill’s structure suggests a pro-worker, pro-Ohio jobs policy aimed at discouraging offshoring and keeping state-supported work in-state. At the same time, the penalties, repayment provisions, and contracting restrictions suggest the measure could draw concern from employers and economic development stakeholders who may view it as restrictive or costly.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s penalties and incentive restrictions for employers that move call center work overseas, the requirement to repay the unamortized value of state benefits, and the mandate that state call center and customer service work be performed entirely within Ohio. Supporters would likely emphasize job retention, accountability, and protecting state investments, while opponents may argue that the bill limits business flexibility, could discourage investment, and may be difficult to administer for multi-state or global operations.