Will The Governor Nip “Absentee Florists” in the Bud?

An almost perennial effort to prevent florists from misrepresenting the location of their business was sent to Gov. Jerry Brown by the state Senate August  13.

The bill is the fifth such measure in 13 years to prevent call centers, potentially located hundreds or thousands of miles away, from using a local city or neighborhood in their name and duping consumers into believing they are patronizing a “local” florist.

This year’s bill is being carried by Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, a Fremont Democrat.

“Local consumers are misled when orders are routed to non-local businesses because fees and commissions are usually taken out of the order’s price,” Wieckowski said in a statement after the bill’s passage on a bipartisan 29 to 7 vote by the 40-member Senate.

“It provides more information for consumers who want to buy from local businesses.”

 Under Wieckowski’s bill, AB 1581, florists using a local phone number or a local name must include their address – both in print, electronic and Internet advertising.

Like past bills with the same goal, Wieckowski’s effort is supported by the California State Floral Association.

Twenty-eight other states have similar truth-in-floral-advertising laws including Arizona, Washington and New Jersey. Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed legislation last year to require such location disclosure.

A website created by local florists, Florist Detective, offers tips on how to avoid inadvertently buying from floral telemarketers. Among the suggestions: Check the address and Google the listed phone number.

Wieckowski and the floral association say California customers who unwittingly do business with an out-of-state call center get less for their money and deprive the state of sales tax revenue.

In arguing for a previous measure in 2010, the floral association used this example:

A buyer orders a $50 floral arrangement. The call center rakes off $21 and $29 goes to the local florist who actually delivers the flowers. Sales tax is levied only on the in-state florist’s end of the transaction, a 42 percent reduction in sales tax.

Wieckowski’s bill also says florists cannot use the words “local” or “locally owned” or claim to be located in California unless actually located in California.

Nor could a florist use a fictitious business name “that would lead a reasonable consumer to conclude that the floral business is physically located in this state.”

Combating “absentee florists” has been a more than a decade long battle. In 1998, the Federal Trade Commission issued a “Consumer Alert” called Petal Pushers: Is Your ‘Local’ Florist Really Long-Distance?

Among other things, the “alert” said:

“Some unscrupulous telemarketing firms are posing as local florists, charging you higher fees and taking business away from legitimate florists in your town.”

Legislation like Wieckowski’s has been introduced in Sacramento since 1999 when Assemblyman George House, a Hughson Republican, carried the first such measure.

That and subsequent efforts have met with legislative approval but were vetoed by both Democratic and Republican governors.

“While this bill might help to eliminate consumer confusion, it ignores the realities of a global economy where companies located all over the world compete globally for customers,” wrote then Gov. Gray Davis in his veto message of House’s bill.

Assemblyman George Nakano, a Long Beach Democrat, took up the fight in 2001.

Waxing more poetic in his second veto message Davis wrote:

“Even if it were appropriate to restrict floral businesses in such a fashion, how would a local business name be defined?  How many miles away from the Pacific coast would a business have to be located before it could not use the word “Pacific” in its name?  This legislation would be problematic to define and enforce. Additionally, I fear that this bill would create a slippery slope of unnecessary restrictions on all kinds of businesses.”

Assemblywoman Mary Salas, a Chula Vista Democrat, tried twice, in 2007 and 2010.

Both bills by Salas were vetoed by GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Channeling his inner Gray Davis, Schwarzenegger said in vetoing Salas’ 2010 bill that in the 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.”

Gov. Jerry Brown doesn’t take positions on measures until they reach his desk.



  1. Doesn’t the line-item veto let the gov cross out the parts they don’t like, e.g., the ‘florist’s’ name, while saving the substance? If the governor wanted to, that is.

    Comment by JoAnn Anglin — 8.13.2012 @ 9:40 pm

  2. Actually, California’s governor only has the authority to reduce or eliminate appropriations (including items in the budget bill); this “blue pencil” power doesn’t extend to regular bill language. The only time language can be eliminated is through a veto (a rejection) on appropriations. (Imagine the fun they might have otherwise…!)

    Comment by Renee Van Vechten — 8.13.2012 @ 10:12 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment