Texas House Bill HB 5621

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 3/14/25

Caption

Relating to the jurisdiction of district and county attorneys to prosecute certain consumer protection violations.

Summary

HB 5621 expands the role of district and county attorneys in enforcing Texas consumer protection law. The bill amends the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act to allow local prosecutors, with prior written notice to the attorney general’s consumer protection division, to bring certain consumer protection actions when the division does not intend to proceed itself. It also sets procedures for filing voluntary compliance assurances and civil investigative demand petitions in the county where the parties reside, and it requires local prosecutors to report back to the consumer protection division when they prosecute a matter on their own. The bill also revises civil investigative demand procedures and financial-record discovery rules. It clarifies how documentary material may be demanded, served, protected, and used in consumer protection investigations, including treatment of trade secrets and out-of-state service. In addition, it amends Finance Code Section 59.006 to expressly recognize investigative demands or inquiries from the attorney general or district/county attorneys as exceptions to the financial-institution record-disclosure rules, while preserving notice, cost, consent, in camera review, and protective-order requirements for many customer record requests.

Impact

If enacted, HB 5621 would broaden enforcement authority under the Business & Commerce Code by giving district and county attorneys concurrent authority to pursue certain consumer protection violations, subject to notice and coordination with the attorney general’s consumer protection division. It would also affect the handling of civil investigative demands and the disclosure of financial institution records, creating explicit statutory procedures and exceptions that govern when banks and other financial institutions must produce customer records in response to government and litigation-related requests. The bill applies prospectively only to causes of action accruing on or after its effective date.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill was treated as a procedural and enforcement-expansion measure rather than a controversial policy overhaul. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, and the bill was left pending in the House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee. Based on the text, the measure appears aimed at strengthening local consumer-protection enforcement and clarifying discovery rules, with no documented formal opposition or support in the supplied record.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the shift in enforcement power from the attorney general’s consumer protection division to local prosecutors and the interaction with regulated industries, especially financial institutions and insurers. The bill preserves a coordination role for the consumer protection division and imposes notice requirements, but it also allows district and county attorneys to proceed after a waiting period if the attorney general does not actively investigate or litigate. Another likely issue is the bill’s treatment of financial records and investigative demands, which could raise privacy, compliance-cost, and procedural concerns for banks, customers, and licensed insurers. The text also contains a special rule for violations of Section 17.46(b)(28), directing most civil penalties to the county, which may be seen as an incentive for local enforcement.