Nevada 2025 Regular Session

Nevada Senate Bill SB49

Refer
11/19/24  
Introduced
2/3/25  
Report Pass
4/17/25  
Engrossed
4/24/25  
Refer
4/24/25  
Report Pass
5/14/25  
Enrolled
5/23/25  
Chaptered
5/28/25  

Caption

Revises provisions relating to consumer protection. (BDR 52-439)

Summary

SB49 revises Nevada’s consumer protection and deceptive trade practices laws. It expands the Attorney General’s authority to bring civil actions against deceptive trade practices, clarifying that the AG may seek any available remedy under the deceptive trade practices chapter and may do so on behalf of the State, its agencies, political subdivisions, districts, municipal corporations, or the people of Nevada. The bill also updates service-of-process rules for subpoenas and administrative orders in these cases. The bill increases the administrative fine that may be imposed after an administrative hearing from $1,000 to up to $15,000 per violation, or treble restitution, whichever is greater. It also revises how the Consumer Protection Legal Account may be used, allowing funds to pay necessary staff and other additional consumer-protection and fraud-prevention purposes without the prior limitation tied to 120 days of operating costs. In addition, the bill clarifies that the Consumer’s Advocate does not have custody or control of records until they are received, and that confidential records remain confidential in the Advocate’s possession. It also makes a related public-records clarification in the state open-records law. Overall, the bill appears to strengthen enforcement tools and administrative flexibility for the Attorney General’s Office and the Bureau of Consumer Protection. It broadens remedies, raises penalties, and gives more latitude in using consumer-protection settlement funds, while also preserving confidentiality for certain records transferred to the Consumer’s Advocate. The effective date is July 1, 2025. The voting history suggests the measure was broadly supported, passing the Senate 20-0 and the Assembly 37-5. That pattern indicates general bipartisan approval for the consumer-protection enforcement changes. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to identify detailed arguments, but the main policy tradeoff is between stronger enforcement and higher penalties on one hand, and concerns about expanded government authority, use of settlement funds, and confidentiality of records on the other.

Impact

SB49 amends multiple provisions in NRS Chapters 228, 239, and 598. It expands the Attorney General’s enforcement authority under Nevada’s deceptive trade practices laws, increases administrative fines for violations, revises service requirements for enforcement orders and subpoenas, and broadens the permissible uses of the Consumer Protection Legal Account. It also clarifies the custody and confidentiality status of records held by the Consumer’s Advocate and makes a conforming public-records change. The bill primarily affects the Attorney General, the Consumer’s Advocate, the Department of Business and Industry, legal aid recipients of account funds, and businesses subject to deceptive trade practice enforcement.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment around SB49 appears favorable. The near-unanimous Senate vote and strong Assembly vote indicate broad legislative support for stronger consumer-protection enforcement and more flexible funding for related work. The bill’s framing as a consumer-protection measure likely contributed to its positive reception, and there is no evidence in the provided materials of organized opposition during committee consideration.

Contention

The main points of contention, based on the bill text, are likely the expansion of Attorney General authority, the increase in administrative fines, and the broader use of Consumer Protection Legal Account funds. Businesses and others subject to deceptive trade practice enforcement may view the higher penalties and expanded remedies as burdensome, while supporters would characterize them as necessary deterrents. There is also a potential transparency-versus-confidentiality issue in the provisions making certain records confidential when transferred to the Consumer’s Advocate, though the bill preserves confidentiality only where it already existed in the originating agency’s custody.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

NV SB63

Revises provisions relating to the processing of certain data. (BDR 52-505)

NV SB338

Revises provisions relating to the sale of tickets to a live entertainment event. (BDR 52-590)

NV AB204

Revises provisions relating to medical debt. (BDR 52-135)

NV AB250

Revises provisions relating to certain debt. (BDR 52-599)

NV AB431

Revises provisions relating to the sale and resale of tickets to certain events. (BDR 52-1075)

NV SB01248

An Act Expanding Consumer Protections.

NV HB1644

Relating To Consumer Protection.

NV SB2032

Relating To Consumer Protection.

NV SB50

Relating To Consumer Protection.

NV SB50

Relating To Consumer Protection.

Similar Bills

IL SB2087

STATES ATTY-PEACE OFCR-PRIVACY

CA SB605

State attorneys and administrative law judges: compensation.

TX HB2530

Relating to special appointments in suits affecting the parent-child relationship.

LA SB454

Provides for a population based allocation of assistant district attorney positions in the state. (7/1/26) (OR +$397,950 GF EX See Note)

LA HB719

Provides relative to the number of assistant district attorneys in each judicial district (RE +$2,274,000 GF EX See Note)

TX SB888

Relating to the attorney general's defense of a district or county attorney against certain lawsuits in federal court.

TX SB2501

Relating to selection of an attorney by an indigent parent as attorney ad litem for the parent in certain suits affecting the parent-child relationship.

TX SB1026

Relating to the authority of the attorney general to prosecute criminal offenses prescribed by the election laws of this state.