Sponsorship

S.3786 - / A.6716 - CANESTRARI

Sponsorship

A.472 - FIELDS, PHEFFER, DINOWITZ, GUNTHER, MAYERSOHN, ERRIGO, burling, finch, reilich, walker

Memorandum in Support

BILL NUMBER: A472

TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the general business law, in relation to prohibiting the importation, manufacturing, distribution, or sale of yo-yo waterball toys

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL :

The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the sale, import, manufacture, or distribution of yo-yo waterball toys.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS :

This bill would prohibit any person, firm, corporation or association from selling, importing, manufacturing or distributing yo-yo waterball toys.

The bill defines yo-yo waterball toy as "a yo-yo waterball, water yo-yo or any similar toy made of rubber or rubber-like material consisting of a ball that is filled with a liquid and attached to an elastic cord with a finger loop at the end."

The Attorney General would be authorized to enforce the provisions of this section by seeking an injunction against a violator. The bill also provides for a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars for each violation. Each sale of a yo-yo waterball toy in violation of this section would constitute a separate violation.

JUSTIFICATION :

Yo-yo waterballs consist of a liquid-filled ball on an elastic cord with a small finger loop at the end that allows children to throw the ball, stretch the cord and bounce it back like a yo-yo. Since its emergence in 2003, consumer safety agencies around the world have received numerous complaints from parents reporting various injuries involving the toy, including strangulation, laceration and eye injuries.

The New York State Consumer Protection Board has issued two warnings calling yo-yo waterballs a serious hazard to children. The second warning was issued after a five-year-old girl from the Rochester area was nearly strangled by the toy`s long elastic cord. Similar to other choking incidents involving yo-yo waterballs, the elastic cord became wrapped around the child`s neck after she had been twirling it above her head. The cord was wrapped so tightly that her father had to use a pair of scissors to cut the cord.

According to injury reports collected by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), as of April 30, 2005, yo-yo waterballs were responsible for 397 reported health incidents, 280 of which were classified as causing suffocation or strangulation. Furthermore, a safety investigation conducted by the U.S. CPSC found that yo-yo waterballs pose a potential risk of strangulation.

Yo-yo waterballs are banned in France, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Australia, Brazil, and Canada. The toys have been banned in Illinois, and Massachusetts and New Jersey have issued warnings concerning the threat posed to children by yo-yo waterballs. Consumer Reports rated yo-yo waterballs as "not acceptable" in the December 2003 issue, stating that the toy poses significant safety concerns. Lastly, in their annual survey of toy safety entitled "Trouble in Toyland" (November 2004), the National Association of State Public Interest Research Groups recommended yo-yo waterballs be banned in the United States, citing the growing number of injuries sustained by children playing with the toy.

Given the documented risks yo-yo waterballs pose to children, it is essential that these dangerous toys be banned in New York.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :

2005-06: A.9048A/S.5060A - Passed Assembly, Consumer Protection Committee in Senate

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS :

None

EFFECTIVE DATE : 90 days after enactment.

Sponsorship

A.2030 - O`DONNELL, BRODSKY, DELMONTE, GALEF, CYMBROWITZ, FIELDS, BRADLEY, ENGLEBRIGHT, GUNTHER, LIFTON, JOHN, BROOK-KRASNY, GORDON T, BOYLAND, LANCMAN, SPAN, alfano, barra, benjamin, bing, brennan, christensen, clark, colton, destito, diaz r, dinowitz, gordon d, heastie, jacobs, koon, lopez v, lupardo, markey, mcdonough, mceneny, millman, o`mara, paulin, reilly, rivera n, rosenthal, seminerio, sweeney, titus, walker, weinstein, weisenberg,

Memorandum in Support

BILL NUMBER: A2030A

TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the public service law, the executive law and the general business law, in relation to the provision of residential wireless telephone service

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL :

This bill enacts the "wireless telephone consumer protection act" providing consumer protections such as disclosure of terms and conditions of services and charges.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS :

Section 1 of the bill is the short title.

S2 of the bill is the statement of legislative findings and purpose.

S3 of the bill amends paragraph (a) of subdivision 6 of section 5 of the Public Service Law.

S4 of the bill adds a new paragraph (a-2) to subdivision 1 of section 553 of the Executive Law.

S5 of the bill adds a new Article 28-E to the General Business Law entitled the "Wireless Telephone Consumer Protection Act." It establishes wireless telephone fair practices, and a complaint process with the Consumer Protection Board. The new wireless telephone service provider requirements include:

* Disclosure of calling plans, monthly fees, airtime minutes, additional charges, termination fees, length of trial periods, E-911 service, and coverage maps and areas.

* Clearly organized wireless bills with billing that is done in plain language.

* A trial use period of fifteen days after the first monthly bill has been issued. A customer may cancel within the fifteen day trial period without a termination fee.

S6 of the bill is a severability provision.

S7 of the bill is the effective date.

JUSTIFICATION :

The rapid development of wireless telephone technologies has increased the affordability and use of the services, and as a result, many consumers now use cell phones as a primary mode of communication. Many other customers, especially older ones, use cell phones primarily for safety in the event of emergencies during travel. The wireless industry has evolved to the point where different providers offer various calling plans, rates and other services. However, many consumers find the plethora of plans confusing and providers do not always fully disclose the terms of service. Lack of full disclosure can make it difficult to evaluate calling plans or to compare different plans. Moreover, wireless plans often lock consumers into long term contracts with high cancellation costs.

The Wireless Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the Act) will give the Consumer Protection Board authority to regulate wireless telephone service providers with respect to consumer protections, to establish and administer a consumer complaint resolution process, and to assess administrative penalties for noncompliance with the Act or implementing regulations or orders. The legislation would also provide specific protections for consumers, including the right to cancel service without any termination fees within 15 days after the first wireless telephone bill has been issued to the customer. This provision would give a meaningful remedy to the customer who receives a bill that is significantly higher than expected, or advertised. The Act would require providers to disclose detailed coverage showing where cell phone service is and is not available, a significant issue for customers who buy cell phones for safety when driving. Other protections include: requiring upfront disclosure of monthly fees, taxes, surcharges and additional charges for using the cell phone, a formal consumer complaint process at the Consumer Protection Board, information regarding basic and enhanced wireless 911 service, good faith estimates of anticipated monthly bills, and clearly organized bills written in plain language.

In March 2006, the Assembly Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection held a public hearing at which both industry and consumer representatives testified, as did a representative of the New York State Consumer Protection Board (the CPB). As part of his overview, the CPB representative noted that in 2004, the latest year for which data had been published, the Better Business Bureau reported that it received more complaints about wireless telephone service than it did for any other industry. Similarly, the National Association of Attorneys General reported that surveys over the past five years showed that complaints about wireless service were among the most frequently occurring categories of complaints. The CPB representative also noted that at the CPB the volume of complaints about wireless service has remained steady for the last several years, both in terms of absolute numbers and percentage of complaints. He estimated that two-thirds of consumer complaints concern billing or rate issues, with the remaining complaints concerning quality of service, dissatisfaction with industry responses to inquiries or complaints, and general lack of information about how and where to file a consumer complaint. With respect to billing, one of the most common complaints has been that rates and fees are higher than consumers understood they would be at the time of purchase. As noted above, the specific provisions of the Act, especially upfront disclosure, a formal consumer complaint process at the CPB, and the trial period ending 15 days after the first bill to the consumer, would address a substantial majority of these complaints.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :

A.8539/S.8501 (2005-06), passed Assembly on June 23, 2006.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS :

To be determined.

EFFECTIVE DATE : This act shall take effect 180 days after it shall have become a law; provided that the Consumer Protection Board is authorized, prior to the effective date, to promulgate rules and regulations and take any other measures necessary to implement the act on the effective date. The only change in A.2030-A. from A.2030, is the change from a specific effective date (January 1,2008) to an effective date 180 days after becoming law.