Kansas House Bill HB2291

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/5/25
• Report Pass: 2/18/25
• Refer: 2/20/25
• Refer: 2/25/25
• Engrossed: 2/27/25
• Refer: 2/28/25
• Report Pass: 3/14/25
• Enrolled: 3/25/25
• Vetoed: 4/10/25
• Override: 4/10/25

Caption

Creating the regulatory relief division within the office of the attorney general and establishing the general regulatory sandbox program to waive or suspend rules and regulations for program participants.

Summary

HB2291 creates a new regulatory relief division within the Kansas attorney general’s office and establishes a general regulatory sandbox program. The program is designed to let selected businesses test innovative products or services in Kansas while temporarily waiving or suspending certain state administrative rules and regulations that would otherwise apply. Applicants must submit detailed information about the offering, consumer benefits and risks, and the rules they want waived; the division then consults with affected agencies and an advisory committee before deciding whether to admit the applicant. The bill sets out a structured process for participation, including a 24-month demonstration period, consumer disclosure requirements, reporting obligations, and the ability for the division to end participation if a participant violates program terms or poses harm. It also requires agencies and the division to produce reports on outcomes, consumer harm, and possible statutory or regulatory reforms. The bill expressly excludes liquor-related offerings, does not allow waivers of taxes under Chapter 79, and does not permit the program to be used to eliminate licensing requirements altogether. It also makes application materials confidential for a period, and amends the Kansas Open Meetings Act to allow the advisory committee to meet in executive session when reviewing sandbox applications. In practical terms, the bill affects Kansas administrative law by creating a new state office and a new pathway for temporary regulatory relief from selected rules and regulations. It also modifies K.S.A. 75-4319 to add a specific closed-meeting exception for the sandbox advisory committee, while preserving public notice and reporting requirements elsewhere in the program. The measure is aimed at reducing regulatory barriers for startups and other businesses, while keeping consumer-protection limits in place through disclosures, agency review, and the ability to remove participants. The general sentiment reflected in the voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support but also notable opposition. It passed both chambers and later survived veto override votes in both the House and Senate, indicating that a majority of legislators favored the concept strongly enough to enact it over executive objection. The vote margins also show that support was not unanimous, with a substantial minority voting no at each stage. The main points of contention appear to center on the balance between innovation and regulation. Supporters likely viewed the sandbox as a way to encourage business development, reduce unnecessary red tape, and attract new industries, while critics likely worried about weakening consumer protections, limiting agency oversight, and creating confidentiality and closed-meeting exceptions. Additional concerns may have involved the breadth of the attorney general’s discretion, the temporary suspension of rules, and whether the program could create uneven treatment among businesses.

Impact

HB2291 creates new statutory authority for the attorney general to administer a regulatory sandbox and directs state agencies to participate in reviewing applications for temporary waivers or suspensions of certain rules and regulations. It also amends the Kansas Open Meetings Act, K.S.A. 75-4319, to allow the sandbox advisory committee to enter executive session when discussing applications. The bill does not eliminate licensing laws generally, does not allow waivers of liquor-related statutes, and bars waivers of taxes, fees, or charges administered under Chapter 79. It therefore changes administrative procedure and regulatory oversight more than it changes substantive licensing or tax law.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment appears favorable but divided. The bill passed both chambers and then passed veto override votes in both the House and Senate, showing that legislative support was strong enough to enact the measure despite executive resistance. At the same time, the nontrivial number of no votes in each chamber indicates persistent concern about the policy’s effects on consumer protection, agency authority, and transparency.

Contention

The main contention is the tradeoff between regulatory flexibility and public safeguards. Supporters of the sandbox framework likely emphasized innovation, economic development, and reduced regulatory burden for businesses, while opponents likely focused on the risk of waiving rules that protect health, safety, and financial well-being. Additional points of concern include the confidentiality of applications, the ability of the director to deny or terminate participation with broad discretion, the closed-meeting exception for the advisory committee, and whether the program could create unfair advantages for participating firms over nonparticipants.