WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 936

An Act amending the act of June 13, 1967 (P.L.31, No.21), known as the Human Services Code, in public assistance, further providing for definitions and for copayments for subsidized child care.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Heather Boyd and 22 co-sponsors

North Carolina HB 936 broadens robocall protections by expanding consent, banning certain timing and spoofing, and covering ringless voicemails and spam texts to reduce unwanted so

Referred to Human Services
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 936

HB 936 — Robocall Solicitation Modifications (North Carolina) — Summary

Note: The materials provided include multiple different bills numbered HB 936 from different states (notably North Carolina and Maryland) and other draft texts. This summary focuses on the North Carolina bill titled "Robocall Solicitation Modifications." At the end I note the other HB 936 material found in the packet.

Main purpose / intent

HB 936 revises North Carolina’s telephone solicitation law to address modern robocalling practices. The bill expands definitions (to cover ringless voicemail and spam/scam texts), tightens consent rules, clarifies who counts as a “robocaller,” and updates restrictions on timing, content, and caller identification to reduce unwanted automated and prerecorded solicitations.

Key provisions and changes

  • Expanded definitions
    • Robocall: explicitly includes artificial/auto‑generated or prerecorded voice messages, ringless voicemail messages, and spam/scam text messages sent via messaging apps.
    • Robocaller & Telephone solicitor: defined broadly to include any person doing business in the State who makes or substantially assists in making robocalls/telephone solicitations, directly or through agents.
    • Automatic dialing/recorded message player: defined to include autodialers and random/sequential number generators.
  • Prior express written consent
    • Sets explicit criteria for valid prior express written consent: must be written, bear the signature of the person called (including electronic/digital signatures allowed under law), include the specific number to be called, and contain clear disclosures (that the person authorizes the calls and is not required to sign as a condition of purchase).
    • Consent is non‑transferable and tied to the specific person/number.
  • Time limits
    • Telephone solicitations (including robocalls) are prohibited before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m.
  • Content and conduct restrictions
    • Prohibits threats, intimidation, or profane or obscene language in calls.
    • Prohibits transmission of misleading caller ID information or other misrepresentation of the call’s origin (spoofing). Using the name/number of the entity on whose behalf the call is made is permitted.
  • Do Not Call registry interactions
    • Telephone solicitors may not call to obtain prior express written consent from a number listed on the Do Not Call registry; they may, however, use nontelephonic notices to attempt to secure consent or invite the subscriber to initiate contact.
  • Scope
    • “Doing business in this State” includes making or causing calls to North Carolina subscribers from inside or outside the State, making the rules applicable to out‑of‑state callers targeting NC numbers.

Who is affected

  • Consumers/telephone subscribers: expanded protections against unwanted robocalls, ringless voicemail, and spam/scam texts.
  • Businesses, call centers, telemarketers, and third‑party vendors: new compliance obligations (consent documentation, caller ID practices, call timing, and content restrictions). Costs could rise for firms that rely on automated calling or text campaigns.
  • Telecom providers / caller ID services: subject to rules on misrepresentation (the bill clarifies that providers are not liable for other entities’ violations).
  • State enforcement entities: the Attorney General and courts (the bill references federal Do Not Call registry and enforcement framework; specific enforcement/penalty mechanisms are not included in the excerpt).

Procedural / timeline highlights (from provided record)

  • Referred to Commerce and Economic Development (with further referrals to Judiciary 3 and Rules) on April 14, 2025.
  • Committee Substitute Favorable adopted May 6, 2025; Third Edition Engrossed May 7, 2025.
  • Status as of the latest provided document: Committee substitute favorably reported; bill advanced through committee substitution and engrossment. (The packet does not include a final chapter enactment number for the NC bill.)

Potential impacts

  • Consumer privacy and nuisance reduction: broader protections against modern robocall methods.
  • Business compliance: firms using autodialers, prerecorded messages, ringless voicemail, or mass texting must review consent processes, recordkeeping, and caller ID practices.
  • Out-of-state telemarketers: subject to NC rules whenever calls target NC subscribers.

Other HB 936 material in the packet
- A Maryland HB 936 (different subject) enacted as Chapter 744: requires carriers to send written (certified mail) and electronic notice to employees of small group health plans within 7 days of cancellation/nonrenewal, and to include information on COBRA and Maryland Health Benefit Exchange options; effective January 1, 2026. This is a distinct bill and applies to Maryland insurance law.

If you want, I can:
- Produce a side‑by‑side comparison of the NC robocall draft vs. current NC statute (Chapter 75, Article 4).
- Pull out proposed enforcement/penalty language if you can provide fuller text beyond the excerpts.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.