Person who sells emotional support dogs required to provide notice that the dog is not a service dog, and criminal penalties for misrepresenting service animals increased.
Summary
HF4390 would require anyone who sells or provides a dog as an emotional support dog to give the buyer written notice that the dog is not a service dog, does not have the special training required of service animals, and is not entitled to the legal rights and privileges of a service dog. The notice must be in at least 12-point bold type and included on the receipt or on a separate document. The bill also makes clear that the attorney general may enforce this disclosure requirement under the state’s consumer protection enforcement provisions.
The bill further amends Minnesota’s service-animal misrepresentation law by increasing the penalty for repeat violations. Under current law, a first violation of intentionally misrepresenting a dog as a qualified service animal is a petty misdemeanor, while a second or subsequent violation becomes a gross misdemeanor. The bill keeps that structure but reinforces the criminal consequences tied to repeated misrepresentation. The effective date is August 1, 2026, and it applies to offenses committed on or after that date.
Impact
The bill would add a new consumer-disclosure requirement in Minnesota Statutes chapter 325F for the sale or provision of emotional support dogs, creating a statutory obligation for sellers and allowing attorney general enforcement. It would also amend Minnesota Statutes section 609.833, subdivision 3, to preserve and clarify the enhanced criminal penalty for repeat service-animal misrepresentation. Affected parties include sellers of emotional support dogs, buyers or recipients of those dogs, the attorney general, and individuals who falsely claim service-animal status for a dog.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote data, so there is no documented debate or recorded vote sentiment to assess. Based on the bill’s content and caption, the measure appears aimed at consumer clarity and preventing misuse of service-animal protections, suggesting a generally regulatory and enforcement-oriented approach rather than a controversial policy expansion. No opposition or support statements are included in the provided materials.
Contention
The main policy issue is the distinction between emotional support dogs and service dogs, particularly whether sellers should be required to warn consumers that emotional support animals do not carry service-animal legal rights. Another point of potential contention is the criminal penalty framework for misrepresenting a service animal, especially whether increasing or emphasizing penalties is the right enforcement tool. Because no committee discussion or votes are provided, it is not possible to identify specific legislators, stakeholders, or organized groups taking positions.
Distinguishes the terms "service animal" and "emotional support animal"; provides that persons with a disability shall be entitled to reasonable housing accommodations for a service animal or emotional support animal, provided that they obtain documentation from a qualified practitioner; provides that certain privileges are restricted to persons with a service animal; provides that a person who fraudulently obtains documentation for a reasonable housing accommodation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine and community service.
An Act Concerning Dog Breed And Therapy Animals In Insurance Underwriting And Evaluating The Feasibility Of Establishing A Penalty For Misrepresenting A Dog As A Service Animal.
Community first services and supports requirements for shared services clarified, wage increases for support workers providing shared services required, and community first services and supports definitions renumbered.