BILL NUMBER: S7519
SPONSOR: CLEARE
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the general business law and the civil practice law and
rules, in relation to prohibiting business entities from transmitting
false caller identification information with the intent to defraud or
harass any person
 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
This legislation would ban business entities from "spoofing." Spoofing
is the transmission of false caller identification information with the
intent to defraud or harass any person.
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section one amends the general business law by adding a new section
399-ppp. Subdivision 1 of section 399-ppp provides that it shall be
unlawful for any business entity, in connection with any telecommuni-
cations service or VoIP service, to cause any caller identification
service to transmit false caller identification information when making
a call to any person within the state with the intent to defraud or
harass. Subdivision 2 of section 399-ppp provides definitions of "busi-
ness identity," "caller identification information," "caller identifica-
tion service," and "VoIP service.". Subdivision 3 of section 399-ppp
provides that whenever there is a violation of this section, the attor-
ney general may make an application to a court or justice having juris-
diction to issue an injunction, and upon notice to the defendant, to
immediately enjoin and restrain the continuance of such violations. No
proof is required that any person has, in fact, been injured or damaged
by such violation. The court may also make allowances to the attorney
general as provided in paragraph six of subdivision (a) of section 8303
of the civil practice law and rules. In addition to any such allowances,
the court may direct restitution to any victim upon a showing of damages
by a preponderance of the evidence. A court may also impose a civil
penalty of up to $2,000 per call, with an aggregate amount of up to
$100,000, for all calls placed in violation of this section within any
continuous seventy-two hour period. Subdivision 4 of section 399- ppp
provides that in addition to the right of action granted to the attorney
general under this section, any person whose caller identification
information was used in connection with a violation of this section or
who has received a telephone call in violation of this section may bring
an action in his or her own name to enjoin such unlawful act. In addi-
tion, any such person may bring an action to recover the greater of: (a)
his or her actual damages; or (b) an amount of up to $500 per call, up
to an aggregate amount of no more than $25,000, for all calls placed in
violation of this section within any continuous severity-two hour peri-
od; or both such actions. The court may award reasonable attorney's fees
to a prevailing plaintiff. Subdivision 5 of Section 399-ppp provides
that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any member of a
law enforcement unit acting within the scope of his or her assigned
duties or to a court order that specifically authorizes the use of call-
er identification manipulation.
Section two amends paragraph 6 of subdivision (a) of section 8303 of the
civil practice law and rules, as amended by chapter 530 of the laws of
2002, by adding an action brought by the attorney general under section
399-ppp to the list of proceeding's subject to allowances that may be
paid to the attorney general. The sum of such allowance shall not exceed
$2,000 against each defendant.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
Spoofing occurs when a person intentionally alters caller identification
information to mask the true identity of the caller. The minimum effect
is that the end user is deceived - the person making the call is not the
Person identified on the screen-and the person identified on the screen
is "spoofed." This means that the person being spoofed has had caller
identification information - his identity, in essence - intentionally
misappropriated by the caller to achieve an end. In the case of a tele-
marketing firm doing the spoofing, the intent may be to get the end user
to pick up the phone, because the call seems to be a personal call rath-
er than a call from a telemarketer.
No matter what the facts are, the essence of the conduct is that a
person's caller identification information is stolen and then used so
that end users are deceived or harassed. The person who was spoofed may
suffer the following damages: a significant invasion of his or her
privacy; damage to his or her reputation, depending on the content of
the message attached to his caller identification information; the
publishing of a previously unpublished phone number; being associated
with a telephone effort that is viewed as one that harasses people; and
becoming the recipient of angry phone calls at any hour of the day from
people who have received. Calls that seemingly were placed by-the person
being spoofed, but were actually placed by someone else.
This legislation seeks to end this indefensible practice by making
spoofing a violation of the general business law, and authorizing the
attorney general and private parties to seek both injunctive and mone-
tary relief.
 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
Passed Assembly in multiple previous years.
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
None.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act will take effect on the sixtieth day after it shall have
passed.