New York Assembly Bill A00092

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Requires certain notices in communications by mercantile establishments attempting to settle civil actions deriving from larceny prosecutions.

Summary

This bill would require mercantile establishments, when attempting to settle a civil action arising from an alleged larceny under General Obligations Law section 11-105, to include a mandatory warning statement in every settlement communication. The notice must explain that the communication is an attempt to resolve a civil claim based on alleged larceny, describe the potential civil liability under existing law, and state that the civil penalties are separate from any criminal penalties that may be pursued. If the communication is written, the statement must be conspicuous and in larger font; if spoken, it must be read in full. The bill also creates a private enforcement mechanism against a merchant that fails to provide the required notice. A person harmed by a violation could recover actual damages, treble the amount sought in the settlement offer, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The measure applies immediately to future settlement attempts and is aimed at communications connected to alleged shoplifting or other larceny-related civil claims by retailers and other mercantile establishments.

Impact

The bill would amend the General Business Law by adding a new section 349-h, imposing disclosure requirements on merchants and other mercantile establishments that seek civil settlements after alleged larceny incidents. It would not change the underlying civil liability framework in General Obligations Law section 11-105, but it would regulate how settlement demands are communicated and create new penalties for noncompliance. The practical effect would be to increase notice to accused individuals, while exposing businesses to damages, treble recovery, and fee-shifting if they omit the required language.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the available context suggests a consumer-protection and due-process-oriented approach rather than a partisan or highly contested one. The sponsor appears to be concerned that settlement communications in shoplifting-related civil claims may not adequately inform recipients of their rights and the separate nature of civil and criminal consequences. Because there is no recorded vote history or transcript, no clear legislative consensus or opposition can be inferred from the provided materials.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be whether the mandated warning is necessary and proportionate, or whether it imposes an additional burden on merchants seeking to resolve alleged larceny claims. Supporters would likely emphasize transparency, fairness, and protection against misleading settlement pressure, while opponents may argue that the bill could chill legitimate civil recovery efforts and create litigation risk through treble damages and attorneys’ fees. Another possible issue is the bill’s statement that criminal charges may still be pursued unless a settlement precludes them, which may raise questions about the interaction between private civil settlements and criminal enforcement.