On October 1, 2025, I had the opportunity to provide testimony before the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure regarding HB 363, “An Act clarifying telephone solicitation”. This bill, presented by Representative Michael J. Finn of West Springfield, proposes further regulation of telephone solicitation, including a prohibition on all robocalls to “any hands-free mobile telephones, mobile electronic devices and mobile telephones” subject to an exception for “informational calls,” which is awkwardly (and misleadingly) defined to include calls and texts sent in the context of a pre-existing business relationship.
While the EIA shares the fundamental desire to stop unwanted and unsolicited robocalls—I felt obligated to convey our substantial concerns regarding the scope, language, and potential unintended consequences of the current draft of H.363 and to help the Joint Committee understand why this bill would have unintended consequences for our members.
Applauding the Scope, Questioning the Efficacy
During my testimony, I noted that the drafters of H.363 sought to address a broad spectrum of unwanted communications, and I specifically applauded the effort to regulate political calls and text messages. Most politicians are unwilling to impose the same burdens on their speech that they all too eagerly impose on businesses, so I was genuinely pleased to see this bill attempt to address this concern. After all, data clearly shows that unwanted political texts are currently the largest source of spam complaints.
I explained to the Joint Committee that bills like H.363 simply do not produce the intended result of stopping unwanted calls or texts. Stopping spam is not a local challenge; it is a complex, international effort, with the majority of these nefarious scams originating overseas.
Fortunately, real, impactful change is already happening at the federal level. Over the past few years, the FCC and the industry have collaborated effectively on technical approaches designed to stop the delivery of spam calls and texts right at the network level. This technology-first approach, which includes new call tracing teams that aid law enforcement and the FCC’s efforts to block traffic from carriers not taking sufficient steps to halt traffic origination on their networks, is working. This has already reduced unwanted robocalls by more than 50% in just a few short years.
The Peril of Private Litigation and Inconsistent Laws
Where federal technical approaches are succeeding in stopping bad actors, state laws often fail, instead providing a costly “payday” for plaintiffs’ lawyers. Unfortunately, the current legal landscape has fostered an environment where private litigation often turns into a tool to extract settlements from legitimate U.S. companies through “shakedown” lawsuits. (Can we all say, “quiet hours”?) State laws that introduce conflicting or inconsistent requirements, such as H.363, only exacerbate this existing problem. And, we all just witnessed the chaos that these laws can cause in Texas.
Legitimate e-commerce businesses engaged in nationwide communications face technical impossibilities when attempting to comply with state-specific regulations. A key concern is that businesses lack a reliable and legal means to know where a mobile subscriber is physically located before a text message is sent. Why? Because the FCC considers real-time location data confidential and subject to strict federal rules prohibiting carriers from sharing this sensitive data with third parties, including businesses.
It is crucial for lawmakers to understand that relying on area codes to determine which state’s laws apply is not a reliable methodology when extending regulations to mobile phones.
Conflicting Definitions Create Widespread Confusion
Furthermore, despite being titled “An Act Clarifying Telephone Solicitation”, the draft of HB 363 includes a number of inconsistencies that raise substantial concerns about how it will be interpreted and applied in litigation, thereby leading to unintended consequences for our members.
A prime example is the bill’s attempt to carve out an exception for certain communications. HB 363 does provide an exception for “Informational calls,” defined as a commercial call from, or on behalf of, an entity with whom the called party has a pre-existing business relationship. However, referring to necessary marketing communications as “informational calls” fundamentally clashes with decades of well-established legal precedent at the federal level. This approach will inevitably create widespread confusion for businesses across the country.
The bill defines “Robocall telephone solicitation” broadly, covering voice or text communication over a telephone line or wireless network that uses both a computerized auto-dialer and a computer-delivered pre-recorded message for the purpose of soliciting or encouraging the purchase or rental of property, goods, or services, or for obtaining a charitable donation. The proposed penalties for knowing violations—not less than $10,000 for each knowing violation—combined with the vague language, expose legitimate businesses to extreme financial risk.
My Recommendation
I urged the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure—chaired by Representative Tackey Chan and Senator Pavel Payano—to reconsider the scope and language of H.363, particularly concerning its application to consented communications and the penalties involved.
The Ecommerce Innovation Alliance stands in opposition to the current bill and will continue to work to address those concerns. Instead of burdening legitimate e-commerce businesses—which are vital to our economy—with the risk of more frivolous litigation, we ask the committee to support a more consistent regulatory approach that focuses efforts on stopping true bad actors.
The hearing on H.363, along with several other bills, was conducted in a hybrid format on Wednesday, October 1, 2025. My prepared remarks are available here. For more on policy approaches for state legislatures, visit States vs. Robocalls and download our e-book.
