Consumer Protection - Video Streaming Services - Loudness of Commercial Advertisements
Summary
HB985 would add a new consumer protection rule in Maryland’s Commercial Law Article governing video streaming services. The bill prohibits a video streaming service from transmitting the audio of a commercial advertisement at a louder volume than the accompanying video programming or content being streamed to a consumer in the state. It defines “video streaming service” as an internet-protocol-based service that delivers both video content and ads directly to consumers, while excluding television broadcast stations, cable operators, and other television programming distributors.
The bill also ties compliance to existing federal loudness standards. A streaming service would be deemed in compliance if it follows regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission under the federal Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act and related rules for television broadcasters and other distributors. A violation of the new section would be treated as an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under Maryland law, making it enforceable under the state’s consumer protection provisions, with certain title 13 remedies and sections excluded as specified in the bill.
Impact
HB985 would amend Maryland’s Commercial Law Article by adding Section 14-1330 and by incorporating violations of that section into the state’s unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices framework in Section 13-301. This would give the Attorney General and other enforcement mechanisms under Title 13 a basis to address excessively loud streaming advertisements, while also creating a new compliance standard for streaming platforms operating in Maryland. The bill would not regulate traditional broadcast television or cable in the same way, focusing instead on internet-based streaming services.
Sentiment
The available record suggests the bill is aimed at a narrow consumer annoyance issue and is framed as a straightforward consumer protection measure. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or opposition in the supplied materials. The bill’s structure, including its reliance on existing FCC loudness standards, suggests an effort to align state law with established federal practice rather than create a wholly new regulatory regime.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the scope of regulation: the bill applies to video streaming services but expressly excludes broadcast stations, cable operators, and other television programming distributors, which could raise questions about parity among media platforms. Another possible issue is whether state-level enforcement of ad loudness on streaming services is necessary given existing federal standards, and whether the bill could impose compliance burdens on digital platforms. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided materials.