Consumer protection restitution account established, report required, and money appropriated.
HF1392 establishes a new Consumer Protection Restitution Account in the state’s special revenue fund and directs certain money recovered by the attorney general in consumer enforcement actions into that account. The bill defines consumer enforcement actions and eligible consumers, and it creates a process for using account funds to make restitution payments to consumers who were harmed by unlawful conduct but have not yet received their full compensation. It also allows the attorney general to appoint an account administrator, sets a priority rule for distributions when funds are limited, and permits the attorney general to stop distributions when further payments are impractical or unreasonable.
The bill also requires the attorney general to publish an annual report on the account, including the cases that generated deposits, the amounts distributed, the consumers still awaiting payment, and administrative costs. It specifies that no private right of action is created regarding the account, and it preserves the attorney general’s existing authority to continue collecting amounts owed under final orders. In addition, the bill amends state tax law to exclude consumer enforcement public compensation payments from taxable income, retroactive to tax years beginning after December 31, 2023.
The bill would change how Minnesota handles certain consumer-fraud recoveries by diverting 50 percent of state-payable money from consumer enforcement actions into a dedicated restitution account rather than the general fund, while leaving the other 50 percent in the general fund unless otherwise designated. It amends Minnesota Statutes sections 8.31 and 16A.151 to carve out this new account from existing rules governing disposition of recovered money, and it adds a subtraction under section 290.0132 so eligible consumers do not pay state income tax on restitution received from the account. The bill also creates reporting and administrative requirements for the attorney general and limits administrative costs to 3 percent of funds available.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text, the measure appears designed to improve consumer restitution and transparency, which suggests a generally consumer-protection-oriented purpose. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided context means sentiment cannot be assessed beyond the bill’s apparent remedial intent.
The main policy issue is how recovered consumer-enforcement money should be allocated: the bill shifts a portion of state-recoverable proceeds into a restitution account for consumers rather than leaving all such money in the general fund. Another possible point of contention is administrative discretion, because the attorney general may deem some distributions impractical or unreasonable and may appoint administrators to manage the account. Tax treatment may also be a point of interest, since the bill exempts these restitution payments from state income tax retroactively. No specific opponents or supporters are identified in the provided materials.