Oklahoma Senate Bill SB1052

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/4/25

Caption

Contracts; creating the Predatory Solicitation Prevention Act; prohibiting certain practice; providing for fees and fines; directing deposit of fees and fines. Effective date.

Summary

SB1052 creates the “Predatory Solicitation Prevention Act” and adds a new section to Title 15 of the Oklahoma Statutes. The bill defines “predatory solicitation” as persistent, repeated communications aimed at soliciting a purchase, sale, or investment in real property when the communications are intended to influence, harass, intimidate, aggravate, badger, or otherwise disregard the property owner’s ability to refuse. It then prohibits any person or entity from engaging in that practice in Oklahoma. The bill establishes a civil penalty of $600 per instance of communication for violations. It also authorizes the Attorney General or a district attorney to bring actions to recover actual damages and penalties. Any money collected by the Attorney General under the act would be split evenly between the State Health Care Enhancement Fund and the Court Clerk’s Revolving Fund. The act is set to become effective November 1, 2025.

Impact

SB1052 would create a new consumer-protection-style restriction in Oklahoma contract and property-related law by regulating aggressive real-estate solicitation practices. It would give state and local prosecutors an enforcement mechanism, impose per-communication monetary penalties, and direct recovered funds into two state funds. The bill would affect individuals and businesses that market or solicit real property transactions, including investors, wholesalers, and other real-estate buyers who use repeated outreach.

Sentiment

Based on the available record, the bill appears to have been introduced and referred to the Judiciary Committee without recorded debate, votes, or amendments in the provided materials. The overall framing of the bill suggests a protective, anti-harassment purpose aimed at property owners, with no documented opposition or support statements in the transcript materials. Because there are no committee transcripts or vote tallies, the public or legislative sentiment cannot be measured directly from the record provided.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the bill’s broad definition of “predatory solicitation,” which could be seen as reaching beyond clearly abusive conduct to cover repeated real-estate marketing communications. Real-estate investors, wholesalers, and other property acquisition businesses may view the $600-per-communication penalty as significant and potentially chilling legitimate outreach, while property owners and consumer advocates would likely support the measure as a safeguard against harassment and pressure tactics. Enforcement authority is also notable, since both the Attorney General and district attorneys could pursue violations.