BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2076
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2076 (Salas) - As Introduced: February 18, 2010
Policy Committee: B, P, and
C.P.Vote: 11 - 0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits a provider or vendor of floral or ornamental
products or services from misrepresenting the location of its
business by:
1)Listing a local telephone number in any advertisement if calls
to that number are forwarded to a location different than the
location indicated in the advertisement and if the
advertisement does not identify the true physical address of
the business.
2)Listing a fictitious business name in any advertisement if the
name misrepresents the business' geographic location and if
the advertisement does not identify the true physical address
of the business.
FISCAL EFFECT
Potential minor non-reimbursable local costs for investigation
and prosecution of violations, potentially offset by fine
revenue.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the sponsor, the California State Floral
Association (CSFA), this bill will prohibit out-of-state
marketers from stealing the identity of local florists. CSFA
claims that sellers of floral products have been able to
represent themselves as local businesses in advertisements in
any given area by using a local community name and/or using a
local phone number that is re-directed to a different
AB 2076
Page 2
location, oftentimes out-of-state. CSFA maintains that this
arrangement has led to a situation where "California florists
are losing income, California workers are losing wages, the
state of California is losing tax revenue and finally,
California consumers are losing their ability to choose to buy
a local product from a local vendor." CSFA indicates that 22
other states have passed similar legislation.
2)Prior Legislation . AB 1282 (Salas) of 2007 makes it unlawful
for a provider of floral or ornamental products or services to
misrepresent the geographic location of its business. The
bill was vetoed. In his veto message the governor wrote, "In
today's global economy, it is unreasonable to limit
out-of-area businesses from using local names and telephone
numbers. In virtually every aspect of the economy, consumers
are accustomed to purchasing products from around the world
via many methods."
AB 1074 (Nakano) of 2002, which was substantially similar to
this bill, was vetoed by Governor Davis, who noted the same
concerns as Governor Schwarzenegger did in his veto of AB 1282
(Salas).
AB 1375 (House) of 1999, which was also similar, was also
vetoed.
Analysis Prepared by : Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)
319-2081