AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 45 and Title 47, relative to the use of fake checks for advertising.
Summary
HB1379 prohibits a person from mailing a fake check, or an image of a fake check, for advertising purposes. The bill makes clear that the prohibition applies even if the mailing says the check is not real, is voided, or is intended to be used to accept an expiring offer. It is aimed at marketing practices that use check-like mailers to attract consumer attention.
The bill assigns enforcement authority to the Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions and directs the department to adopt rules under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. It also links violations to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, making the conduct an unfair or deceptive act or practice and subjecting violators to the Act’s penalties and remedies. The bill takes effect immediately for rulemaking purposes and otherwise applies to conduct on or after July 1, 2025.
Impact
HB1379 would add a new consumer-protection restriction to Tennessee law by creating Tennessee Code Annotated § 45-1-131 and cross-referencing it into the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. It expands the state’s regulatory and enforcement framework over deceptive advertising mailers, giving the Department of Financial Institutions authority to enforce the ban and promulgate implementing rules. Businesses that use check-like promotional mailings would need to change their advertising practices to avoid civil liability and consumer-protection penalties.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and anti-deception bill, suggesting a generally protective policy rationale rather than a controversial regulatory expansion. The absence of recorded discussion makes the overall sentiment difficult to assess beyond the bill’s plain consumer-focused purpose.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the breadth of the ban: the bill prohibits fake checks or images of fake checks for advertising even when the mailing clearly states that the check is not real or is voided. That could draw concern from direct-mail marketers or businesses that use check-style inserts as promotional tools, while consumer advocates would likely support the restriction as necessary to reduce deceptive or misleading solicitations. Another possible issue is the enforcement role assigned to the Department of Financial Institutions, which may be viewed as expanding regulatory oversight into advertising practices.