HB 2301 creates a new article in Arizona’s trade practices laws to prohibit excessive pricing of certain commodities during a declared state of emergency. It defines “commodity” broadly to include goods, services, materials, merchandise, supplies, equipment, resources, and specific items such as food, water, ice, electricity, building materials, petroleum products, medical supplies, and rent. The bill applies only to commodities necessary to preserve, protect, or sustain life, health, safety, or property during an emergency.
The bill makes it unlawful to sell or offer such commodities at a price that is at least 10% higher than the highest price charged in the 30 days before the emergency was declared. It also creates criminal penalties: knowingly and willfully violating the rule is a class 5 felony if the seller receives at least $500 in a 24-hour period, and a class 6 felony if the amount is $500 or less. In addition, any violation is treated as an unlawful practice under Arizona’s consumer protection law, allowing the attorney general to investigate and pursue enforcement actions.
The bill’s impact would be to expand Arizona’s price-gouging enforcement framework during emergencies and give the attorney general explicit authority to act under the state’s consumer fraud/unlawful practices statutes. It would affect sellers of emergency-related necessities, including retailers, landlords, and suppliers of essential goods and services, by imposing a clear price cap tied to pre-emergency pricing and by exposing violators to both criminal and civil enforcement.
There is no recorded committee discussion or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal legislative sentiment can be measured from hearings or roll calls. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears intended to protect consumers from emergency profiteering and would likely be viewed favorably by consumer advocates and emergency-response interests, while potentially drawing concern from business groups over the breadth of the commodity definition, the 10% threshold, and the use of felony penalties for pricing violations.
The main point of contention is likely the scope and rigidity of the pricing standard. Because the bill covers a wide range of commodities and services, including rent and medical supplies, critics may argue that market conditions, supply shortages, and legitimate cost increases could make compliance difficult during emergencies. Supporters would likely emphasize the need for strong deterrence against price gouging when residents are most vulnerable.
HB 2301 would add a new price-regulation article to Title 44, Chapter 9 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. It would create a statutory prohibition on emergency price gouging for essential commodities, define the covered items broadly, establish a 10% emergency pricing benchmark based on the prior 30 days, and authorize attorney general enforcement under Arizona’s unlawful practices and consumer protection provisions. It would also create new felony offenses for knowing and willful violations tied to sales volume during a state of emergency.
No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so there is no documented legislative sentiment from the available history. The bill’s structure suggests a consumer-protection approach aimed at deterring emergency profiteering, which would generally align with public concern after disasters or declared emergencies. At the same time, the breadth of the bill and the criminal penalties suggest it could attract skepticism from business and landlord interests concerned about overbreadth and enforcement risk.
The likely controversy centers on the bill’s broad definition of “commodity,” which includes not only goods like food, water, and fuel but also services and rent. Another likely point of contention is the 10% threshold tied to the highest price in the prior 30 days, which may be seen as too rigid in volatile markets. The felony classifications and attorney general enforcement authority may also be debated, with supporters viewing them as necessary deterrents and opponents viewing them as excessive for pricing conduct.