AB 147 — Relating to: caller ID spoofing, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty. (FE)
Last action — Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
120 added · 33 removedPlain-language change summary
The amendment to Assembly Bill 147 clarifies the definition of "caller identification record" and outlines provisions related to how telecommunications providers can block certain types of calls. It specifically allows providers to prevent calls that may be misleading or fraudulent from reaching consumers. This matters because it strengthens the overall goal of the bill, which is to combat caller ID spoofing and enhance consumer protection against telemarketing fraud.
- 2020 LEGISLATURE LRBa0304/1LRB-1615/1 MCP:aheMCP:amn ASSEMBLY AMENDMENTBILL 147 April 1, TO2019 ASSEMBLY- BILLIntroduced 147by SeptemberRepresentatives 10,S 2019ANFELIPPO, -KITCHENS, OfferedFIELDS, H AYWOOD , ALLWEG , BORN, RANDTJEN , BROOKS, CONSIDINE, ROWLEY , UCHOW , E DMING, GUNDRUM , AGLER , KERKMAN , NODL , RUG , UGLITSCH , ULP, KURTZ, M AGNAFICI, M EYERS, M URPHY , M URSAU, M YERS, N EYLON , OHNSTAD , OTT, P LUMER , QUINN, R OHRKASTE , SCHRAA , SHANKLAND , SINICKI, SKOWRONSKI , S NYDER, SPIROS, TEFFEN , SUBECK, SUMMERFIELD , C.TAYLOR , ITTL, TUSLER, V ANDERM EER, VORPAGEL , VRUWINK , WICHGERS, ZIMMERMAN and T HIESFELDT, cosponsored by RepresentativeSenators ANFELIPPO.K OOYENGA , ROTH, BERNIER , CARPENTER, COWLES , C RAIG, ACQUE , APENGA , MARKLEIN , MILLE, NASS, OLSEN, SMITH, L.TAYLOR, W ANGGAARD and W IRCH.
AtReferred theto locationsCommittee indicated,on amendConsumer theProtection. bill as follows:
A N A CT to renumber 100.52 (6);
to amend 100.52 (10) (a) and 100.52 (10) (b);
and to create 100.52 (1) (bd), 100.52 (4) (a) 4., 100.52 (4) (a) 5., 100.52 (6) (c), 100.52 (10) (c) and 100.523 of the statutes;
relating to:
caller ID spoofing, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty.
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau This bill prohibits caller identification (ID) spoofing.
Under the bill, no person may knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.
The bill also prohibits telephone solicitors from knowingly transmitting misleading or inaccurate caller ID information for any purpose, except that the telephone solicitor may transmit the name of the seller on whose behalf the telemarketing call is placed and the seller's customer service telephone number, if an individual may call that number to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours.
The bill creates an exemption for transmissions in connection with authorized activities of law enforcement agencies or a court order specifically authorizing the use of caller ID manipulation.
In addition, the bill prohibits a telephone solicitor from blocking the transmission of caller identification information.
A person who violates any of these prohibitions is subject to a civil forfeiture of $100 to $10,000.
The bill also provides that a telecommunications provider may block calls so that they do not reach the called party if the originating number is not valid;
is not allocated to a provider;
or is confirmed by the provider to be unused.
- 2020 Legislature - 2 - LRB-1615/1 MCP:amn ASSEMBLY BILL 147 For further information see the state fiscal estimate, which will be printed as an appendix to this bill.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
100.52 (1) (bd) of the statutes is created to read:
100.52 (1) (bd) “Caller identification record” has the meaning given in s.
100.525 (1) (a).
SECTION 2.
100.52 (4) (a) 4.
of the statutes is created to read:
100.52 (4) (a) 4.
When making a telephone solicitation, block the transmission of a caller identification record.
SECTION 3.
100.52 (4) (a) 5.
of the statutes is created to read:
100.52 (4) (a) 5.
When making a telephone solicitation, knowingly transmit a misleading or inaccurate caller identification record, except that a telephone solicitor or an employee or contractor of a telephone solicitor may transmit the name of the seller on whose behalf the telephone solicitation is being made and the seller's customer service telephone number, if an individual may call that number to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours.
SECTION 4.
100.52 (6) of the statutes is renumbered 100.52 (6) (a).
SECTION 5.
100.52 (6) (c) of the statutes is created to read:
100.52 (6) (c) Subsection (4) (a) 5.
does not apply to the transmission of a caller identification record in connection with the authorized activity of a law enforcement agency or a court order that specifically authorizes the manipulation of a caller identification record.
SECTION 6.
100.52 (10) (a) of the statutes is amended to read:
Show all 107 changed lines (67 more)
LRB-1615/1 - 2020 Legislature - 3 - MCP:amn SECTION 6 ASSEMBLY BILL 147 100.52 (10) (a) Except as provided in par.
(b) or (c)on who violates this section may be required to forfeit $100 for each violation.
SECTION 7.
100.52 (10) (b) of the statutes is amended to read:
100.52 (10) (b) A telephone solicitor that violates sub.
(4) (amay beo 3.
required to forfeit not more than $100 for each violation.
SECTION 8.
100.52 (10) (c) of the statutes is created to read:
100.52 (10) (c) A telephone solicitor that violates sub.
(4) (a) 4.
or 5.
shall be required to forfeit not less than $100 and not more than $10,000 for each violation.
SECTION 9.
100.523 of the statutes is created to read:
100.523 Caller identification spoofing;
call blocking.
(1) DEFINITIONS.
In this section:
(a) “Caller identification record” has the meaning given in s.
100.525 (1) (a).
(b) “North American Numbering Plan” means the integrated telephone numbering plan that serves multiple North American countries and territories and that is regulated by the federal communications commission.
(c) “Telecommunications service” has the meaning given in s.
196.01 (9m).
(2) PROHIBITION.
Except as provided under sub.
(3), no person may, in connection with any telecommunications service, knowingly transmit a misleading or inaccurate caller identification record with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.
(3) E XEMPTION.
The prohibition under sub.
(2) does not apply to the transmission of a caller identification record in connection with the authorized activity of a law enforcement agency or a court order that specifically authorizes the manipulation of a caller identification record.
- 2020 Legislature - 4 - LRB-1615/1 MCP:amn ASSEMBLY BILL 147 SECTION 9 (4) CALL BLOCKING.
(a) A telecommunications service provider may block the following types of calls so that they do not reach a called party:
Page 3, line 10:
deleteEFINITION" and substitute “EFINITIO".
2.
Page 3, line 11:
delete the material beginning with “In this section:" and ending with ““Caller identification record"” on line 12 and substitute “In this section, “caller identification record””.
3.
Page 3, line 13:
delete lines 13 to 16.
4.
Page 4, line 1:
delete lines 1 to 17.
5.
Page 4, line 24:
after that line insert:
“S ECTION 10m.0Nonstatutory provisions.
(1) The legislature recognizes that telecommunications providers have the ability to block voice calls consistent with federal law and rules promulgated by the LRBa0304/1 - 2020 Legislature - 2 - MCP:ahe federal communications commission, in particular rule FCC 17-151, adopted November 16, 2017, which provides the following:
(a) A telecommunications provider may block the following types of calls so that they do not reach a called party:
1.
A voice call purporting to originate from aany Northof Americanthe Numberingfollowing: Plan number that is not valid;
aa. valid North American Numbering Plan number that is not allocated to a provider;
orA a valid North American Numbering Plan number that is allocated to a provider but that is not used,valid. if the provider blocking the calls is the provider to which the number is allocated and confirms that the number is not used, or if the provider blocking the calls obtains verifications from the provider to which the number is allocated that the number is not used.
b.
A valid North American Numbering Plan number that is not allocated to a provider.
c.
A valid North American Numbering Plan number that is allocated to a provider but that is not used, if the provider blocking the calls is the provider to which the number is allocated and confirms that the number is not used, or if the provider blocking the calls obtains verifications from the provider to which the number is allocated that the number is not used.
(c) For purposes of this subsection, a provider may rely on caller identification information to determine the purported originating number without regard to whether the call in fact originated from that number.”.number.
(5) RULES.
The department may promulgate rules to administer and enforce this section.
(6) ENFORCEMENT .
The department shall investigate violations of this section and may bring an action for temporary or permanent injunctive or other relief for any violation of this section.
(7) PENALTY.
A person who violates sub.
(2) shall be required to forfeit not less than $100 and not more than $10,000 for each violation.
SECTION 10.Effective date.
LRB-1615/1 - 2020 Legislature - 5 - MCP:amn ASSEMBLY BILL 147 S ECTION10 (1) This act takes effect on the first day of the 13th month following publication.
Show all 107 changed rows (67 more)
View plain text versions (2)
- Bill Text View text pdf
- Amended Assembly Amendment 1 Current pdf
Action History
-
Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
-
Available for scheduling
-
Read first time and referred to committee on Senate Organization
-
Received from Assembly
-
Ordered immediately messaged
-
Representative Stubbs added as a coauthor
-
Read a third time and passed
-
Rules suspended
-
Ordered to a third reading
-
Assembly Amendment 1 adopted
-
Read a second time
-
Placed on calendar 2-11-2020 by Committee on Rules
-
Representative Allen added as a coauthor
-
Referred to committee on Rules
-
Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Consumer Protection, Ayes 9, Noes 0
-
Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by Committee on Consumer Protection, Ayes 9, Noes 0
-
Executive action taken
-
Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representative Sanfelippo
-
Public hearing held
-
Fiscal estimate received
-
Read first time and referred to Committee on Consumer Protection
-
Introduced by Representatives Sanfelippo, Kitchens, Fields, Haywood, Ballweg, Born, Brandtjen, Brooks, Considine, Crowley, Duchow, Edming, Gundrum, Jagler, Kerkman, Knodl, Krug, Kuglitsch, Kulp, Kurtz, Magnafici, Meyers, Murphy, Mursau, Myers, Neylon, Ohnstad, Ott, Plumer, Quinn, Rohrkaste, Schraa, Shankland, Sinicki, Skowronski, Snyder, Spiros, Steffen, Subeck, Summerfield, C. Taylor, Tittl, Tusler, VanderMeer, Vorpagel, Vruwink, Wichgers, Zimmerman and Thiesfeldt; cosponsored by Senators Kooyenga, Roth, Bernier, Carpenter, Cowles, Craig, Jacque, Kapenga, Marklein, Miller, Nass, Olsen, Smith, L. Taylor, Wanggaard and Wirch
Sponsors
- Sanfelippo · Primary
- Joel Kitchens · Primary
- Fields · Primary
- Ballweg · Primary
- Mark Born · Primary
- Brandtjen · Primary
- Considine · Primary
- Crowley · Primary
- Cindi Duchow · Primary
- Edming · Primary
- John Jagler · Primary
- Kerkman · Primary
- Daniel Knodl · Primary
- Scott Krug · Primary
- Kuglitsch · Primary
- Kulp · Primary
- Magnafici · Primary
- Meyers · Primary
- David Murphy · Primary
- Jeffrey Mursau · Primary
- Myers · Primary
- Adam Neylon · Primary
- Ohnstad · Primary
- Ott · Primary
- Plumer · Primary
- Romaine Quinn · Primary
- Rohrkaste · Primary
- Schraa · Primary
- Shankland · Primary
- Christine Sinicki · Primary
- Skowronski · Primary
- Patrick Snyder · Primary
- John Spiros · Primary
- David Steffen · Primary
- Lisa Subeck · Primary
- Rob Summerfield · Primary
- Paul Tittl · Primary
- Ron Tusler · Primary
- Nancy VanderMeer · Primary
- Vorpagel · Primary
- Vruwink · Primary
- Chuck Wichgers · Primary
- Shannon Zimmerman · Primary
- Thiesfeldt · Primary
- Sequanna Taylor · Primary
- Tony Kurtz · Primary
- Robert Brooks · Primary
- Kalan Haywood · Primary
- Rick Gundrum · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →49 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 83 not signed on
Sponsors (49)
- Sanfelippo
- Kitchens, Joel Republican
- Fields
- Ballweg
- Born, Mark Republican
- Brandtjen
- Considine
- Crowley
- Duchow, Cindi Republican
- Edming
- Jagler, John Republican
- Kerkman
- Knodl, Daniel Republican
- Krug, Scott Republican
- Kuglitsch
- Kulp
- Magnafici
- Meyers
- Murphy, David Republican
- Mursau, Jeffrey Republican
- Myers
- Neylon, Adam Republican
- Ohnstad
- Ott
- Plumer
- Quinn, Romaine Republican
- Rohrkaste
- Schraa
- Shankland
- Sinicki, Christine Democrat
- Skowronski
- Snyder, Patrick Republican
- Spiros, John Republican
- Steffen, David Republican
- Subeck, Lisa Democrat
- Summerfield, Rob Republican
- Tittl, Paul Republican
- Tusler, Ron Republican
- VanderMeer, Nancy Republican
- Vorpagel
- Vruwink
- Wichgers, Chuck Republican
- Zimmerman, Shannon Republican
- Thiesfeldt
- Taylor, Sequanna Democrat
- Kurtz, Tony Republican
- Brooks, Robert Republican
- Haywood, Kalan Democrat
- Gundrum, Rick Republican
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (83)
83 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 83 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by Committee on Consumer Protection, Ayes 9, Noes 0
Roll call published as PDF — view source.
Roll call published as PDF — view source.
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors AB 147?
- AB 147 is sponsored by Sanfelippo, Kitchens, Joel (Republican), Fields, Ballweg, Born, Mark (Republican), Brandtjen, Considine, Crowley, Duchow, Cindi (Republican), Edming, Jagler, John (Republican), Kerkman, Knodl, Daniel (Republican), Krug, Scott (Republican), Kuglitsch, Kulp, Magnafici, Meyers, Murphy, David (Republican), Mursau, Jeffrey (Republican), Myers, Neylon, Adam (Republican), Ohnstad, Ott, Plumer, Quinn, Romaine (Republican), Rohrkaste, Schraa, Shankland, Sinicki, Christine (Democrat), Skowronski, Snyder, Patrick (Republican), Spiros, John (Republican), Steffen, David (Republican), Subeck, Lisa (Democrat), Summerfield, Rob (Republican), Tittl, Paul (Republican), Tusler, Ron (Republican), VanderMeer, Nancy (Republican), Vorpagel, Vruwink, Wichgers, Chuck (Republican), Zimmerman, Shannon (Republican), Thiesfeldt, Taylor, Sequanna (Democrat), Kurtz, Tony (Republican), Brooks, Robert (Republican), Haywood, Kalan (Democrat), and Gundrum, Rick (Republican).
- What is the current status of AB 147?
- This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track AB 147?
- Track AB 147 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 147
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of AB 147
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →