Wisconsin 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: In Committee Bipartisan · 5 R · 3 D cosponsors

SB 132 — Relating to: caller ID spoofing, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty. (FE)

Last action — Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

121 added · 33 removed

Plain-language change summary

The recent amendments to SB 132 mainly focused on clarifying the bill's language and structure concerning caller ID spoofing regulations. One significant change is the removal of certain definitions and specific lines to streamline the bill, ensuring that the terms used are more concise and easier to understand. Additionally, the amendment emphasizes the authority of telecommunications providers to block fraudulent calls under federal guidelines, which is crucial for protecting consumers from scams. These changes matter because they aim to enhance the effectiveness of the legislation in preventing caller ID fraud and making it easier to enforce.

→
Previous
Latest
- 2020 LEGISLATURE LRBa0374/1 MCP:ahe SENATE AMENDMENT 1, TO SENATE BILL 132 June 19, 2019 - Offered by SenatorOOYENGA .
- 2020 LEGISLATURE LRB-2256/1 MCP:amn SENATE BILL 132 March 20, 2019 - Introduced by Senators KOOYENGA , OTH , ERNIER, CARPENTER , C OWLES, CRAIG, ACQUE, KAPENGA, MARKLEIN , MILLE, NASS, OLSEN, MITH, L.
At the locations indicated, amend the bill as follows:
TAYLOR , ANGGAARD and W IRCH, cosponsored by RepresentativesANFELIPPO, K ITCHENS, FIELDS, HAYWOOD , B ALLWEG, B RANDTJEN, B ROOKS, C ONSIDINE, C ROWLEY, DUCHOW , EDMING , GUNDRUM , AGLER , KERKMAN , KNODL , KRUG , K UGLITSCH, KULP, KURTZ , MAGNAFICI, M YERS, MURPHY , MURSAU , NEYLON , O HNSTAD, OTT, PLUMER , QUINN, ROHRKASTE , SCHRAA, SHANKLAND , SINICKI, SKOWRONSKI , SNYDER , PIROS, STEFFEN, SUBECK , SUMMERFIELD , C.TAYLOR , TITTL, USLER , ANDERM EER , ORPAGEL, VRUWINK , WICHGERSand ZIMMERMAN .
Referred to Committee on Government Operations, Technology and Consumer Protection.
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-2256/1 MCP:amn SENATE BILL 132 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.
Show all 109 changed rows (69 more)
Previous
Latest
100.52 (10) (a) of the statutes is amended to read:
LRB-2256/1 - 2020 Legislature - 3 - MCP:amn SECTION 6 SENATE BILL 132 100.52 (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-2256/1 MCP:amn SENATE BILL 132 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:
deletEFINITION" and substitute EFINITION".
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:
“SECTION 10m.
Nonstatutory provisions.
(1) The legislature recognizes that telecommunications providers have the ability to block voice calls consistent with federal law and rules promulgated by the LRBa0374/1 - 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 a North American Numbering Plan number that is not valid;
A voice call purporting to originate from any of the following:
a valid North American Numbering Plan number that is not allocated to a provider;
a.
or 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.
A North American Numbering Plan number that is not valid.
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.”.
(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.
(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-2256/1 - 2020 Legislature - 5 - MCP:amn SENATE BILL 132 S ECTION10 (1) This act takes effect on the first day of the 13th month following publication.
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

  2. Representative Stubbs added as a cosponsor

  3. Available for scheduling

  4. Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Government Operations, Technology and Consumer Protection, Ayes 5, Noes 0

  5. Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Government Operations, Technology and Consumer Protection, Ayes 5, Noes 0

  6. Executive action taken

  7. Representative Allen added as a cosponsor

  8. Public hearing held

  9. Senate Amendment 1 offered by Senator Kooyenga

  10. Fiscal estimate received

  11. Representative Thiesfeldt added as a cosponsor

  12. Read first time and referred to Committee on Government Operations, Technology and Consumer Protection

  13. Introduced by Senators Kooyenga, Roth, Bernier, Carpenter, Cowles, Craig, Jacque, Kapenga, Marklein, Miller, Nass, Olsen, Smith, L. Taylor, Wanggaard and Wirch; cosponsored by Representatives Sanfelippo, Kitchens, Fields, Haywood, Ballweg, Brandtjen, Brooks, Considine, Crowley, Duchow, Edming, Gundrum, Jagler, Kerkman, Knodl, Krug, Kuglitsch, Kulp, Kurtz, Magnafici, Myers, Murphy, Mursau, Neylon, Ohnstad, Ott, Plumer, Quinn, Rohrkaste, Schraa, Shankland, Sinicki, Skowronski, Snyder, Spiros, Steffen, Subeck, Summerfield, C. Taylor, Tittl, Tusler, VanderMeer, Vorpagel, Vruwink, Wichgers and Zimmerman

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

16 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 116 not signed on

Sponsors (16)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (116)

116 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 116 →

"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.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Subjects

public-safety technology
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

Who sponsors SB 132?
SB 132 is sponsored by Kooyenga, Roth, Bernier, Carpenter, Tim (Democrat), Cowles, Craig, Kapenga, Chris (Republican), Miller, Olsen, L. Taylor, Wirch, Robert (Democrat), Wanggaard, Van (Republican), Smith, Jeff (Democrat), Nass, Steve (Republican), Marklein, Howard (Republican), and Jacque, André (Republican).
What is the current status of SB 132?
This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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 SB 132?
Track SB 132 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 132

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.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 132

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →