"Fair Business Practices Act of 1975" commercial cheating services that target students and examinees seeking a professional license as an unlawful, unfair, and deceptive trade practice; ban
Summary
SB 213 amends Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act to prohibit the commercial sale or provision of substantially completed work products to students and professional-license examinees when those materials could reasonably be used as part of an assessment task. The bill defines key terms such as “assessment task,” “student or examinee,” “assignor,” and “work product,” and it applies to K-12 students, home study programs, University System and Technical College System students, and people taking professional licensure exams. It also makes clear that disclaimers or contract language cannot be used to avoid the law.
The bill classifies a violation as an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Fair Business Practices Act, but limits enforcement to public enforcement by the Attorney General. It expressly removes any private right of action for these violations, while preserving the ability to provide tutoring, research materials, general information, and certain automated systems or software so long as they are not primarily designed to supply assessment tasks. In effect, the bill targets “commercial cheating services” while carving out ordinary educational support and some AI or software tools.
Impact
SB 213 would add a new prohibited practice to Georgia’s consumer protection law and expand the list of unfair or deceptive acts under Code Section 10-1-393. It also amends the civil remedies section to ensure these violations are enforced only by the Attorney General, not through private lawsuits. The bill affects businesses that sell essays, test answers, completed assignments, or similar academic or licensing-exam materials, as well as students and examinees who might use those services, while preserving lawful tutoring and instructional services.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition in the recorded votes. It passed the Senate 53-1 and the House 155-7, suggesting strong agreement that commercial cheating services should be prohibited. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into debate, but the vote margins indicate the measure was generally viewed favorably as a consumer-protection and academic-integrity bill.
Contention
The main policy tension in SB 213 is between stopping paid cheating services and avoiding overreach into legitimate educational support or technology. The bill’s exceptions for tutoring, research, general information, and automated systems/software suggest concern that the prohibition not sweep in ordinary academic assistance or emerging AI tools. Another notable point is enforcement: the bill deliberately bars private lawsuits and leaves enforcement to the Attorney General, which may reflect a desire to prevent abusive litigation while still allowing state action against violators.
Enacts the "fostering affordability and integrity through reasonable (FAIR) business practices act", to expand the attorney general's ability to protect New Yorkers from unfair, deceptive and abusive business practices.
Enacts the "fostering affordability and integrity through reasonable (FAIR) business practices act", to expand the attorney general's ability to protect New Yorkers from unfair, deceptive and abusive business practices.