Skip to content
Bills from the 2011–12 session

Assembly Bill 634

The prohibition on telephone solicitations to residential customers, granting rule-making authority, and making an appropriation

Topics: Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Department of, Federal trade commission, Telephone

Stopped before the full Assembly voted

The recommended passing it, but the full Assembly never voted on it. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Feb 24, 2012

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The full Assembly never voted on it.

  4. Senate vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Mar 23, 2012: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Current law regulates "telephone solicitation," which is defined as the unsolicited initiation of a telephone conversation for the purpose of encouraging the recipient of the telephone call to purchase property, goods, or services. Current law generally prohibits a telephone solicitor, or employee or contractor of a telephone solicitor, from making a telephone solicitation to a residential customer if the customer's landline or wireless telephone number is included in a nonsolicitation directory maintained by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP), which lists residential customers who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations. Current law exempts the following from the prohibition: 1) telephone solicitations made by nonprofit organizations; 2) telephone solicitations made in response to a recipient's request; and 3) telephone solicitations made to current clients of the person selling property, goods, or services that are the reason for the solicitation. Current law requires DATCP to promulgate rules requiring that telephone solicitors register with DATCP and pay initial registration and annual registration renewal fees to DATCP, which DATCP must use for establishing and maintaining the nonsolicitation directory, as well as for consumer protection, information, and education. Current law prohibits a telephone solicitor who is not registered from requiring that employees or contractors make telephone solicitations in this state. Current law also provides that if a residential customer does not biennially renew his or her listing in the nonsolicitation directory, DATCP must eliminate the customer's telephone number from the directory.

Federal law also regulates telephone solicitations by authorizing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts or practices. Under that authority, the FTC has promulgated a regulation that, with certain exceptions, prohibits a telemarketer from initiating a telephone call encouraging the purchase of goods or services if the recipient's telephone number is on a national "do-not-call" registry maintained by the FTC that consists of the telephone numbers of persons who do not wish to receive such calls. One of the exceptions applies to telemarketing calls to businesses. Federal law requires telemarketers to pay annual fees in order to access the registry. The FTC allows a person to add a landline or wireless telephone number to the registry through a toll-free number or over the Internet. Under federal law, inclusion of a telephone number in the registry is permanent and a person is not required to periodically renew the inclusion. However, a person may remove a telephone number from the registry and the FTC must periodically review the registry and remove telephone numbers that have been disconnected or reassigned to another person.

Read the full summary

This bill eliminates the state's nonsolicitation directory and instead prohibits a telephone solicitor, or employee or contractor of a telephone solicitor, from making a telephone solicitation, as defined under current state law, to a landline or wireless telephone number that is included on a "state do-not-call registry," which the bill defines as the portion of the national do-not-call registry that consists of telephone numbers with Wisconsin area codes. The bill allows DATCP to cooperate with the FTC to add telephone numbers that were in the state's nonsolicitation directory to the national do-not-call registry. The bill's prohibition is subject to the same exemptions as the prohibition under current state law. The bill requires DATCP to publicize the procedures for a residential customer to add a telephone number to the national do-not-call registry.

The bill also provides that the initial registration and annual registration renewal fees that are paid by telephone solicitors must be used for DATCP's administration and enforcement of the requirements applicable to telephone solicitors, as well as for consumer protection, information, and education. The bill allows DATCP to base the amount of a fee that a telephone solicitor must pay on a methodology established by rule, in addition to basing the amount on the number of telephone lines used by the telephone solicitor to make solicitations, which is the basis allowed under current law. In addition, the bill requires that DATCP's rules require a telephone solicitor to provide DATCP with proof that the telephone solicitor has complied with federal law in obtaining copies or updated versions of the state do-not-call registry. The proof must be provided upon initial registration and annual renewal, as well as any other time upon DATCP's request. Finally, the bill prohibits a telephone solicitor from using or possessing a copy or updated version of the state do-not-call registry that the telephone solicitor has obtained in violation of federal law.

Who's behind it

7 lawmakers are its ⁠. All 7 are Republicans.

1 more lawmaker ⁠.

See all 8 names

Authors (7)

Signed on in support (1)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

How lawmakers voted

There was one vote on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Consumer Protection and Personal Privacy vote to recommend it

Passed, 7 to 1 · Mar 6, 2012

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage recommended by committee on Consumer Protection and Personal Privacy, Ayes 7, Noes 1”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Mar 23, 2012

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Mar 6, 2012

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  3. Mar 6, 2012

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 7 to 1.

  4. Feb 28, 2012

    The committee held a public hearing.

  5. Feb 27, 2012

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  6. Feb 24, 2012

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Consumer Protection and Personal Privacy.

  7. Feb 24, 2012

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Feb 24, 2012 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Ripp, Jacque, Tranel, Spanbauer, Wynn, Marklein and Bies;Cosponsored by Senator Holperin

  2. Feb 24, 2012 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Consumer Protection and Personal Privacy

  3. Feb 27, 2012 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Feb 28, 2012 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  6. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by committee on Consumer Protection and Personal Privacy, Ayes 7, Noes 1

  7. Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  8. Mar 23, 2012 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote