BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1581
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1581 (Wieckowski) - As Amended: March 29, 2012
Policy Committee: Business and
Professions Vote: 8 - 0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
As proposed to be amended, this bill makes it an infraction for
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 nonreimbursable costs to local government for
additional enforcement, offset to some extent by additional fine
revenues.
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 1581
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)Proposed Amendment . As currently drafted, this bill would make
violations of the provisions of this bill a misdemeanor,
punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000.
The amendments will reduce the crime to an infraction,
punishable by a fine from up to $250.
3)Similar Legislation Has Been Vetoed Four Times .
a) AB 2076 (Salas) of 2010, a substantially similar bill
was vetoed. In his veto message, the Governor stated, "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."
b) AB 1282 (Salas) of 2007 was also vetoed for the same
reason as AB 2076.
c) 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).
d) AB 1375 (House) of 1999, which was also similar, was
also vetoed.
Analysis Prepared by : Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)
319-2081