Congress OKs Clearer Contest Rules
Added: (Sat Nov 20 1999)
Pressbox (Press Release) -
By CASSANDRA BURRELL Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sweepstakes sponsors would be barred from implying that buying products can increase entrants' chances of winning big prizes under legislation the Senate passed and sent to President Clinton.
The bill, approved by voice vote, was among dozens the Senate handled Friday, the last day of Congress' 1999 session. The House and the Senate won't meet again until late January.
The sweepstakes bill is intended to protect thousands of people who spend millions of dollars on magazine subscriptions or other products they don't want or need in the mistaken hope the purchases boost chances of winning multimillion-dollar cash prizes, luxury cars or exotic vacations.
Federal law already prohibits sweepstakes sponsors from charging entrants a fee or giving a winning edge to a customer who buys something.
Advertising pitches contained in more than 1 billion pieces of sweepstakes mailings sent out yearly, however, are worded too frequently in ways that imply otherwise, said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, author of the legislation.
"Too many people think that if they make a purchase, somehow they will improve their chances of winning, and nothing could be further from the truth," Collins said.
During an investigation, Senate staff members found that an 82-year-old man bought a magazine subscription that stretched into the year 2018 in hopes of improving his chances at a prize, Collins said.
Investigators also turned up dozens of examples of people, frequently the elderly, who spent Social Security checks or squandered savings in the belief that they were getting closer to winning.
"Most people aren't taken in, happily, but enough people are so that a billion pieces of this kind of mail - sweepstakes mail - is sent out this year," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
The bill requires sweepstakes sponsors to display messages prominently that no purchase is required. Currently, those messages frequently are buried in tiny print in inconspicuous places, Collins said.
It also bars sweepstakes mailings from telling recipients that they have won a prize unless they actually have won something.
"You shouldn't have to be a lawyer ... to figure out the rules of the game and the odds of winning," Collins said.
The bill also imposes million-dollar fines on sweepstakes companies that violate the law and gives the U.S. Postal Service new authority to stop mailings quickly.
Last month, American Family Enterprises, which runs a sweepstakes plugged by Dick Clark and Ed McMahon, filed for bankruptcy protection to help settle dozens of lawsuits alleging deceptive advertising for its sweepstakes.
In other votes Friday, the Senate passed separate bills that would:
-Expand long-term care coverage for the nation's veterans and give a cost-of-living boosts to veterans receiving compensation for service-related disabilities. The cost-of-living increase is 2.4 percent, mirroring the annual increase going to Social Security beneficiaries. Already passed by the House, the bill goes to the White House.
-Affirm the legality of contracts signed electronically. The legislation, similar to a House-passed bill, would establish a minimum standard for electronic signatures while states work to overhauling their own laws. The House and Senate will work out differences in the two versions.
-Stop Internet gambling by closing down 'virtual casino' World Wide Web sites. The Senate previously voted 93-0 for the bill, but amendments adopted Friday detail what type of gambling on Indian property would be allowed to continue. Negotiations will be required before the legislation goes to the president.
-Make it illegal under federal law to possess a powerful 'date rape drug,' GHB, or gamma hydroxybutyrate. The House earlier passed a similar bill, and a conference to resolve differences will be required.
-Increase penalties for the illegal manufacture of amphetamines or methamphetamines that substantially puts people or the environment at risk. The House has not taken up similar legislation.