HB 1103
In CommitteeHouse
Unwanted calls & texts
Expanding protections against unwanted telephone calls and text messages for cellular users.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill strengthens protections against unwanted calls and texts for Washington residents by banning unsolicited commercial text messages, tightening telemarketing rules, and increasing penalties for violations. It updates existing laws to better address modern texting practices and ensures callers respect do-not-call requests and caller ID rules.
- Expands existing state rules to explicitly ban unsolicited commercial text messages to Washington cell numbers, including those on the federal do-not-call list.
- Requires telemarketers to clearly identify themselves and their purpose within the first 30 seconds of a call.
- Mandates that callers honor opt-out requests within 10 seconds and prohibits calling again for at least one year.
- Prohibits calls or texts before 8:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. local time of the recipient.
- Bars telemarketers from using or sharing personally identifying information obtained during solicitations.
- Increases penalties for violations to up to $1,000 per violation and allows consumers to sue for damages and attorney fees.
Who is affected
- Washington residents — Residents of Washington who receive unsolicited calls or texts may gain stronger protections against spam and scams, and have clearer rights to stop unwanted contact.
- Telemarketers and commercial callers — Businesses that conduct telemarketing or text-based marketing in Washington must follow stricter rules, including verifying consent, honoring do-not-call requests, and avoiding prohibited times for calls.
- Nonprofit and membership organizations — Nonprofit and membership organizations must ensure their outreach complies with new rules, especially regarding how they identify themselves and handle opt-out requests.
- Telecommunications companies — Wireless carriers must inform residential customers about their rights under this law through billing statements or phone directories.
- Consumers harmed by spam calls/texts — Consumers harmed by repeated violations may sue for damages of at least $1,000 per violation and recover attorney fees.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
By banning unsolicited commercial texts to Washington cell numbers—including those on the federal do-not-call list—and requiring clear identification and opt-out mechanisms, the bill significantly reduces scam, phishing, and robocall harassment, protecting residents from financial fraud and identity theft.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(12), Sec. 3(3)The $1,000-per-violation civil penalty and private right of action empower consumers to sue for damages and attorney fees, creating strong deterrence against repeat offenders and enabling redress for victims of persistent spam or fraud.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6), (7), (12)Prohibiting calls/texts before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m. local time and banning calls to numbers on the federal do-not-call registry respects residents’ privacy and rest, reducing stress and sleep disruption from intrusive solicitations.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(8), (9)Mandating that callers identify themselves and their purpose within 30 seconds—and honor opt-out requests within 10 seconds—reduces deceptive or high-pressure tactics that disproportionately target vulnerable populations like seniors and low-income residents.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5), (7)Prohibiting telemarketers from using or sharing personally identifying information obtained during solicitations helps prevent data misuse and identity theft, especially when combined with the definition of “personally identifying information” in Sec. 2(12).
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7), Sec. 2(12)
Potential Concerns (5)
Telemarketers and commercial callers must comply with stricter operational requirements—including real-time opt-out handling, caller ID disclosure within 30 seconds, and time-of-day restrictions—which increase labor and training costs, especially for small firms with limited compliance staff.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3), (5), (6), (7), (8)The ban on unsolicited commercial text messages to Washington cell numbers—including those on the federal do-not-call list—effectively eliminates a low-cost, high-reach marketing channel for small businesses and service providers (e.g., auto shops, salons, local restaurants), reducing their ability to acquire new customers organically.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(10), Sec. 3(1), (2)The bill creates a private right of action allowing consumers to sue for $1,000 per violation plus attorney fees, which incentivizes plaintiff-side class-action lawsuits against businesses—even for unintentional or technical violations—raising legal risk and insurance premiums.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(12), Sec. 3(3)The bill imposes no direct mandate on local governments but may increase administrative burdens on local law enforcement if consumer complaints escalate, though the fiscal impact analysis estimates minimal local cost.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(13)Nonprofit and membership organizations must revise outreach protocols to ensure opt-out requests are honored within 10 seconds and names are suppressed for one year—costly for small nonprofits without automated CRM systems, potentially reducing volunteer engagement and donor outreach capacity.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(5), (6), (7)
Who Is Most Affected
Most everyday Washingtonians—especially seniors, low-income residents, and families with children—benefit from reduced spam, fraud risk, and sleep disruption. The $1,000-per-violation civil remedy is particularly valuable for those harmed by repeated calls but may be inaccessible without pro bono legal support.
Small and mid-sized telemarketing firms face higher compliance costs (e.g., real-time opt-out systems, training, legal risk), while large national telemarketers with automated systems may absorb costs more easily. The private right of action increases litigation exposure for all, but disproportionately affects smaller operators.
Nonprofits and membership organizations (e.g., churches, unions, civic groups) must invest in compliance tools or staff time to avoid violations, potentially reducing outreach to members and donors—especially impactful for rural or underfunded groups without CRM infrastructure.
Wireless carriers must include notices in billing statements or directories, adding minimal administrative cost but no revenue impact. They may benefit indirectly from reduced fraud complaints and improved consumer trust.
Consumers harmed by spam (e.g., victims of phishing, fake debt collection, or identity theft) gain a powerful legal tool—$1,000+ per violation with attorney fees—though class-action benefits may accrue more to plaintiffs’ attorneys than to individual victims.