Transcript Highlights:

• Don't ever share any personal information, including your account information, debit card information
• We share information, and we try to collaborate to see what we can send out to consumers to educate them
• Do you see that as being a source of information for those persons that victimize these consumers?
• Without any kind of information given by the consumer.
• a consumer.

Summary: A joint House-Senate Insurance and Commerce meeting focused on the growing threat of financial fraud in Arkansas, with members and witnesses describing scams targeting seniors, small businesses, and working families. The committee first approved the November 3, 2025 minutes, then heard from the Arkansas Bankers Association, the American Bankers Association, banks, the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division, the Arkansas Mortgage Bankers Association, the State Bank and Securities Department, the Insurance Department, and AARP. Witnesses described common schemes including spoofed bank calls and texts, government imposter scams, romance and investment scams, business email compromise, fake job postings, gift card scams, check fraud, wire fraud, reverse mortgage scams, identity theft, and insurance fraud. Several witnesses emphasized that cryptocurrency kiosks and crypto transfers make recovery difficult or impossible, and that artificial intelligence is making scams more convincing and scalable. Witnesses repeatedly stressed education, verification, and coordination among banks, law enforcement, regulators, and consumers. Bank and mortgage representatives urged consumers to slow down, independently verify wire instructions, avoid clicking unexpected links, use tap-to-pay rather than chip or swipe when possible, and never share account credentials or one-time codes. The Attorney General’s office said it investigates consumer complaints, mediates disputes, works with social media platforms to remove scam ads, and recently created a Financial Fraud Task Force with bankers and other stakeholders. The State Bank and Securities Commissioner highlighted the Safe AR Act, the state’s crypto kiosk framework, and fraud education efforts such as “fraud bingo,” while the Insurance Department described its law-enforcement role and a range of insurance-related fraud schemes it prosecutes. AARP said fraud is widespread and underreported, especially among older adults. Members asked about reporting scams, how losses are handled, whether tap is safer than chip, how crypto fraud works, whether Arkansas has model legislation to address telecom and social media impersonation, and how local law enforcement and state agencies coordinate investigations. Witnesses said banks generally absorb much of the financial loss under federal rules, while consumers bear the inconvenience and account changes. Several witnesses said Arkansas should consider additional legislation to hold telecom companies and social media platforms accountable for spoofed caller IDs and impersonation ads, and one witness said a federal Scam Act is moving in Congress. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond approval of the minutes, but witnesses agreed to share consumer education materials and model legislation with committee staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• Don't ever share any personal information, including your account information, debit card information
• Don't ever share any personal information, including your account information, debit card information
• We share information and we try to collaborate to see what we can send out to consumers to educate them
• Do you see that as being a source of information for those persons that victimize these consumers?
• from a consumer.”

Summary: A joint House-Senate Insurance and Commerce meeting focused on the growing threat of financial fraud in Arkansas, with members hearing from bankers, regulators, law enforcement, AARP, and mortgage and insurance industry representatives. Witnesses described a wide range of scams, including spoofed bank calls and texts, fake websites and social media impersonation, romance and investment scams, business email compromise, gift card fraud, check fraud, wire fraud, reverse mortgage scams, and crypto kiosk schemes. Several speakers emphasized that fraud is increasingly organized, technology-driven, and amplified by artificial intelligence, and that seniors are disproportionately targeted and often suffer the largest losses. Testimony highlighted both prevention and recovery efforts. Bankers said institutions spend heavily on training, customer education, and fraud detection, but often cannot stop losses once customers have been convinced to authorize transfers. The Attorney General’s office described its Consumer Protection Division, a new Financial Fraud Task Force, and examples of recovering funds quickly from crypto kiosk and wire fraud cases. The State Bank Department and Securities Department said Arkansas’s 2025 crypto ATM legislation and related education requirements have helped, and they urged continued public education. The Insurance Department reported major insurance-fraud trends, including fake insurance cards, forged policies, premium-finance schemes, and staged auto accidents, and said it prosecutes these cases aggressively. Members asked about reporting scams, the security of tap payments, how fraud losses are tracked, the role of crypto kiosks, and whether Arkansas should pursue model legislation or stronger action against telecom and social media companies. Witnesses said tap payments are generally safer than chip or swipe, that crypto transfers are often unrecoverable, and that spoofed caller ID and impersonation ads remain major problems. Paul Benda of the American Bankers Association urged state and federal action against telecom and social media platforms and supported national scam legislation. No new bills were voted on at the meeting, but members approved the November 3, 2025 minutes and several witnesses offered to share model legislation, consumer education materials, and state-by-state fraud data with the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• c> is consumers so consumer protection is consumers so consumer protection is really<00:30:18.000
• can direct consumers to some sites that you can go to for additional information.
• <01:09:29.199> has<01:09:29.440> no consumer the consumer often times has no consumer
• Credit consumer credit okay Consumer Credit consumer credit okay Consumer Credit Division<01:41:
• consumers.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting began with introductory remarks for new and returning members of the House Commerce Committee, led by Chairman John Hunt. Members briefly introduced themselves and their backgrounds, and several noted the committee’s bipartisan, collegial tone. Hunt explained the committee’s structure and traditions, including the division into three subcommittees: banking and business, consumer protection, and liquor commission matters, with insurance now handled as a single area. He also reviewed basic hearing procedures, including decorum, questions for information only, and the committee’s practice of moving bills through subcommittees before full committee executive sessions. The committee then heard an overview from the New Hampshire Insurance Department, led by Commissioner DJ Bettencourt and staff. The department described its mission as promoting a safe and competitive insurance marketplace and emphasized consumer protection, market competition, and affordability. Officials outlined the department’s responsibilities, including licensing insurers, producers, adjusters, and TPAs; reviewing insurance forms; regulating companies and market conduct; overseeing financial solvency; and investigating insurance fraud. They also noted that the department is self-funded through assessments on insurers, collects premium taxes and fees for the state, and returned more than $2.7 million to companies in fiscal year 2024 due to underspending. The presentation also covered the broader regulatory framework for insurance, including the role of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in promoting uniform standards across states and territories. Officials said New Hampshire licenses about 1,200 insurance companies and roughly 245,000 producers and adjusters, and that the department’s financial examinations are part of an accreditation system used nationwide. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the portion provided; the session was primarily organizational and informational, with the insurance department presentation beginning the committee’s substantive work for the term.

Transcript Highlights:

• The current definition of sensitive personal information in the California Consumer Privacy Act allows
• The CCPA is about giving consumers more control over their personal information that businesses collect
• The CCPA provides the ability for a consumer to request the deletion of personal information, the right
• publicly available, leading to consumers losing their rights over their information.
• speed of light that oftentimes the consumer is completely unaware that this information is being out

Summary: The committee heard several AI- and consumer-protection-related bills, with extensive testimony from authors, supporters, and industry opponents. SB 53 by Senator Wiener would create transparency requirements for large AI developers, including disclosure of safety and security protocols, reporting of critical safety incidents, whistleblower protections, and the CalCompute public cloud. Supporters said it is a narrower, transparency-based follow-up to last year’s vetoed AI safety bill, while opponents argued it still relies too much on company size, could expose trade secrets, and should be narrowed further. The committee approved SB 53 on a do-pass-as-amended vote to Appropriations, with the roll held open for absent members. SB 766 by Senator Allen would codify the FTC’s Cars Rule and create a three-day cooling-off period for certain used-car purchases, along with stronger disclosure rules on pricing, add-ons, and government affiliation claims. Supporters said it would save consumers money and time and help buyers avoid bad deals, while dealer and industry groups said amendments addressed many of their concerns. Several former opponents moved to neutral, and the committee passed SB 766 unanimously as amended to Appropriations. SB 7 by Senator McNerney would regulate automated decision-making systems in employment by requiring notice, human review for discipline and termination, and limits on predictive behavior analysis. Labor and consumer advocates supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or overly automated workplace decisions, while employer and industry groups raised concerns about scope, notice burdens, and the predictive-analysis ban. The committee passed SB 7 to Appropriations on a 4-2 vote, with the roll held open. SB 833, also by Senator McNerney, would require human oversight of AI used in critical infrastructure, along with training and system assessments; it drew limited opposition focused on scope, and the committee passed it as amended to Appropriations on a 5-0 vote, also holding the roll open. Later, the committee took up SB 11, which would address AI-generated voice, image, and video cloning and deepfakes by clarifying likeness protections, requiring consumer warnings, and addressing misuse and evidence tampering. Supporters framed it as a targeted response to nonconsensual deepfakes, while industry groups said recent amendments improved the bill but still had concerns about penalties and warning language. The committee also heard SB 720, the Safer Streets Act, which would let cities opt into a revised red-light camera system that shifts from driver to owner liability, removes facial identification, makes violations civil rather than criminal, and directs revenue toward transportation safety projects; the author presented the bill, but the transcript ends before any final action on SB 720.

Transcript Highlights:

• Like other states, this bill provides consumers Like other states, this bill provides consumers with
• It also contains provisions regulating the profiling of consumers.
• We're giving them a guarantee, the consumer right to know, gives control to consumers, and creates strong
• We're giving them a guarantee the consumer right to know, gives control to consumers, and creates strong
• The problem is that consumers do not read privacy policies.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate opened with the Pledge of Allegiance, recognized several guests in the chamber, and adopted a resolution congratulating Coleman-Nee on election as National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans. It also took up several local and personnel matters, including a sick leave bank for Emily Cullick and later Paul Stavarski, and local bills affecting the town of Weston and a Dorchester housing/library procurement exemption; those measures were advanced to third reading or engrossment as appropriate. The chamber also suspended Joint Rule 12 to refer several House petitions to committees. The main business was Senate No. 2516, the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act, which came before the Senate on a Ways and Means substitute (Senate Document 2608). Senators Creem, Moore, Charles, Feingold, Keenan, and others spoke in support, describing the bill as a comprehensive consumer privacy measure with data minimization rules, limits on sensitive data, protections for minors, and strong Attorney General enforcement. Several amendments were debated, with many rejected or withdrawn, while some were adopted, including provisions on geolocation data protections, opting out of targeted advertising, affiliate and merger/acquisition protections, internal operations exemptions, parental access to child data, and a Ways and Means amendment. A number of other amendments on employee data, union data, loyalty programs, AI training, reporting, and related issues were either not adopted or held/withdrawn. After the amendment process, the Senate adopted the amended Ways and Means substitute and ordered the bill to a third reading. The bill was then passed to be engrossed on a roll call vote of 40-0. The Senate also adopted an order to adjourn to the following Monday at 11:00 a.m. and to dispense with printing a calendar. The session adjourned in memory of Darrow Logan Alexander of South Boston.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a consumer...'
• These details could be used to infer whether a consumer has a serious health condition, information about
• You know, the consumers are extremely overwhelmed and overburdened, and they receive so much information
• That information. In fact, cities and counties are increasingly being pushed to share information.
• Disclosure of private information.

Summary: The committee heard several privacy and consumer protection bills, with most of the discussion focused on AI and social media. AB 1405 would create a state registry for AI auditors and set basic transparency, ethics, and qualification standards for those auditors; supporters said it would build trust and provide a foundation for future AI oversight, while some members questioned whether government should define auditor qualifications instead of industry groups. The bill was moved out on a 5-1 vote to Appropriations, with the roll left open. AB 2, by Assemblymember Lowenthal, would impose enhanced financial penalties on large social media companies when their negligence causes harm to children and teens. Supporters, including a grieving parent and Common Sense Media, argued the bill would create accountability for harmful algorithms and design choices, while opponents from TechNet, EFF, CCIA, and CalChamber warned it was vague, could chill speech, invite censorship, and raise Section 230 and First Amendment concerns. Committee members debated private right of action versus public enforcement, possible shakedown lawsuits, and whether the bill should be narrowed; the bill passed 6-0 to Judiciary with the roll left open. AB 410 would expand California’s bot disclosure law so bots must identify themselves up front and truthfully if asked, rather than only prohibiting deceptive bots in limited commercial or election contexts. Supporters said the measure would help users, especially youth and vulnerable people, know when they are interacting with AI and reduce deception online; one privacy group withdrew opposition after amendments, and other industry groups said they were no longer opposed or had no formal position. The bill passed 9-1 to Appropriations with the roll left open. The committee also approved AB 1327, which lets consumers cancel home improvement contracts by email instead of only by mail and requires phone assistance for cancellations; the Contractor State License Board withdrew opposition after amendments, and the bill passed 11-0 to Judiciary with the roll left open.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 898 requires companies to provide information consumers can use when they purchase consumer devices
• We need to inform consumers about these issues so they can protect themselves.
• SB 435 is a critical piece of pro-consumer legislation that will protect consumer information and increase
• available by a person to whom the consumer has disclosed the information if the consumer has not restricted
• necessary to ensure that consumers' personal information remains deleted.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Consumer Consumer Protection<00:11:34.399> okay<00:11:35.399> you<00:11:35.519> can
• to thirdparty litigation information to thirdparty litigation information AIDS<00:26:52.960>
• can lead to more options for consumers can lead to more options for consumers can<00:27:25.240><
• ability to enforce the consumer ability to enforce the consumer protection<00:30:03.279> act<
• consumers who are getting the Consumer consumers who are getting the Consumer Legal<00:48:36.640

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 733-FN, a bill concerning third-party litigation financing (TPLF). Representative Cole, the prime sponsor, described TPLF as outside investors funding lawsuits in which they have no personal stake, arguing that the practice is largely unregulated, can involve foreign entities, increases litigation abuse, and contributes to higher insurance and consumer costs. He said the bill is modeled on an NCOIL proposal and would require disclosure of TPLF agreements, with guardrails and reporting requirements on specified pages of the bill. He also noted a couple of drafting fixes, including adding the word “knowingly” and incorporating a missing section later. Members raised questions about the bill’s foreign-entity language, especially the provision allowing a governor or the Department of Safety to designate a country as a threat to critical infrastructure. Representative Cole said he would have lawyers review that issue. Another member asked whether the bill would prohibit a party from obtaining outside funding for a lawsuit; Cole clarified that the bill is intended as a reporting measure, not a ban, and that disclosure would be required. He also said the bill is aimed at American citizens rather than foreign-backed financing, and that some states had considered caps on such arrangements, though this bill does not. Brandon Gratz of the Attorney General’s office testified that the enforcement language appears too limited, because it would allow only civil penalties and not broader Consumer Protection Act remedies such as injunctions or restitution. He suggested the Attorney General may not have meaningful authority under the bill as written and raised possible insurance-law issues. Commissioner D.J. Benton-Court of the Insurance Department said the disclosure could help insurers better assess risk and potentially soften the hard insurance market by improving transparency, competition, underwriting, innovation, and claims management. He also said the bill likely needs further work on jurisdiction and enforcement, and that the committee may need to coordinate with the Attorney General, Insurance Department, and possibly banking regulators. No vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 898 requires companies to provide information consumers can use when they purchase consumer devices
• We need to inform consumers about these issues so they can protect themselves.
• SB 435 is a critical piece of pro-consumer legislation that will protect consumer information and increase
• made available by a person to whom the consumer has disclosed the information if the consumer has not
• necessary to ensure that consumers' personal information remains deleted.

Summary: The committee began as a subcommittee due to the lack of a quorum and heard several privacy- and technology-related measures. The first item was H.R. 117, a resolution urging Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The author and supporters argued the law is outdated and shields platforms from accountability for harms such as harassment, exploitation, scams, and other online abuse. Witnesses, including a survivor parent and a gender justice advocate, described harms to children, women, and LGBTQ people and urged a two-year sunset to force federal reform. Some members supported the resolution as a call for federal action, while one member said he could not support it because the resolution was too general and lacked specificity about the reforms being sought. No vote was taken because the committee lacked a quorum. The committee then heard SB 898, which would require manufacturers of connected consumer products to disclose how long they will support the software and to notify consumers when products approach end of life. The author said consumers deserve transparency about security updates and continued functionality, and supporters from Consumer Reports and PIRG emphasized cybersecurity risks, consumer confusion, and electronic waste from unsupported devices. Opponents, including business and industry groups, raised concerns about enforcement through the unfair competition law, notice burdens, labeling issues, and compliance challenges, especially for products with long support windows or third-party dependencies. One member expressed support, noting the cybersecurity risks of end-of-life devices, but again no vote was taken because there was no quorum. The committee also heard SB 435, which would narrow the CCPA definition of publicly available information to limit how businesses classify data as public. The author and supporters said the bill would close a loophole that allows data brokers and others to monetize personal information without meaningful consent and could help prevent surveillance and misuse of data, including by government agencies. Opponents argued the bill would upset the balance between privacy and the free flow of information, create compliance uncertainty, and retroactively reclassify information that businesses reasonably believed was public. Some members said they supported the goal of stronger privacy protections, while others said the bill was too broad. The committee again could not vote due to the lack of a quorum. Later, the committee heard SB 923, which would expand Californians’ right to delete personal information to cover data obtained from third parties and require online businesses to offer a web form or similar method for deletion requests. Supporters, including the California Privacy Protection Agency and consumer advocates, said the bill would make deletion rights meaningful and better address data broker practices. Opponents sought an opt-out-of-processing alternative and raised operational and legal concerns, but supporters said deletion is not the same as retention or processing limits. Members largely spoke in favor of the bill’s privacy goals, but no action was taken. The committee also heard SB 947, the “No Robo Bosses Act,” which would require human review for certain automated employment decisions and limit predictive analysis in workplace discipline and termination. Labor groups supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or erroneous AI-driven decisions, while business, public employer, and local government groups opposed it as overbroad and burdensome. Members voiced support for human oversight in employment decisions, but the item was not voted on because the committee still lacked a quorum. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1114, the SOGI Data Privacy Act, which would restrict disclosure of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex data to federal agencies absent a court order or legal requirement; the author and witness framed it as a response to federal efforts to obtain sensitive LGBTQ-related data.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is for informational purposes.
• But we are absolutely on the consumer side.
• The consumers—tighten, put some screws on that—to ensure the consumers are getting that mandatory discount
• I've got people leave. the consumer.
• experience and what this consumer, Mr.

Summary: The subcommittee held its first meeting on homeowners property insurance, with members from both parties introducing themselves and repeatedly noting that insurance affordability, roof condition, claims handling, and storm recovery are top concerns for their districts. Chair Yeager said the meeting was intended as an educational discussion rather than a legislative debate, and introduced a panel that included Insurance Commissioner Mike Yaworski, consumer Chad Carr, agent Mary Catherine Lawler, insurer executive Melissa Burt DeVries, and policyholder attorney Chip Merlin. The panel and members discussed major cost drivers in Florida homeowners insurance, including inflation, home age, roof age, mitigation features, claims history, litigation costs, reinsurance, and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund. Commissioner Yaworski said underwriting has become more sophisticated and that litigation costs, reinsurance, and replacement-cost inflation all affect premiums; he also said litigation is down about 30% and average requested rate increases have fallen from about 22.1% in 2022 to 0.8% today. DeVries said age of home, replacement cost, roof age, and coverage choices can materially change premiums, and explained that reinsurance is a major expense passed through to consumers. Merlin emphasized transparency concerns, argued that insurers are increasingly individualizing risk, and said consumers often struggle with coverage limits, deductibles, and claim denials. Members asked about flood coverage, hurricane deductibles, managed repair programs, mitigation credits, new insurer capitalization, and whether savings from reforms are reaching consumers. Yaworski explained that flood is generally excluded from homeowners policies and covered separately, that hurricane deductibles are mandatory in Florida and usually around 5%, and that the office tracks savings from reforms through rate filings and insurer discussions. He said the state is updating mitigation discounts and monitoring new entrants closely for solvency and market conduct. Several members and panelists said recent reforms have helped reduce some abuses and litigation, but many consumers are still seeing higher premiums because replacement costs and reinsurance remain elevated. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• So let's bring this back to consumers.
• They apply to low-income consumers as well.
• ultimately for the individual consumer.
• Just look at the consumer experience.
• His vision was that we need to have a consumer partner or consumer advocate partner to the state.

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee held an informational hearing on the state of broadband affordability in California. Chair Tasha Berner said the committee was examining how broadband prices, access, and affordability are affecting households, especially after the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program and amid concerns about federal resistance to state broadband regulation. She noted the committee’s continued interest in policy options for 2026 and referenced prior legislation, including AB 353, that would have required affordable home internet as a condition of doing business in California. Industry witnesses from U.S. Telecom and CTIA argued that broadband and wireless prices have generally fallen in real terms even as inflation and other household costs have risen, citing competition, infrastructure investment, and faster speeds as the main drivers. They said California’s higher costs are tied to permitting delays, taxes, copper theft, and legacy obligations such as COLR requirements, and they urged the Legislature to preserve market incentives, reduce fees and regulatory burdens, and support infrastructure deployment. They also discussed fixed wireless access, federal BEAD funding, and Universal Service Fund reform, arguing that more entities benefiting from networks, including tech platforms, should contribute to support programs. Consumer and public-interest witnesses presented a different view, saying California still has a serious affordability and adoption problem, especially for low-income households. Sunny McPhee of the California Emerging Technology Fund said broadband adoption has improved dramatically over time, but about 500,000 households remain offline or underconnected and many low-income households still pay above the FCC affordability benchmark. Ernesto Falcon of the CPUC Public Advocates Office said California’s market is losing its competitive edge, with prices higher than in other states and meaningful price pressure coming mainly from fiber competition at the gigabit tier. He said roughly 4.8 million Californians are limited to one gigabit option and estimated that more competition could save consumers more than $1 billion annually. Both witnesses emphasized the need for stronger transparency, targeted subsidies, and a permanent affordability solution, including extending and refining the CPUC broadband Lifeline pilot and advancing SB 716. Public commenters, including representatives from cable providers, nonprofits, and digital equity organizations, largely supported SB 716 and a permanent broadband affordability program. Several urged the committee to remove a cap on the Lifeline program, expand the CPUC pilot, and invest in digital navigators, outreach, and enrollment assistance. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, after the chair thanked the witnesses and public commenters for their testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• No, because consumers—educated consumers—have the right to go to any gas station they want, and they
• consumers.
• consumers.
• We need consumer protection. But I'll continue. We need consumer protection.
• We get consumer protection mainly through transparency. We're... How we get consumer protection?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several energy-related bills, with the main focus on H. 3534/S. 2255, which would ban or sharply restrict residential third-party electric suppliers, and on related reform proposals. Supporters included the Attorney General’s office, municipal and regional planning officials, environmental justice groups, consumer advocates, and city officials from Boston and Chelsea. They argued that the residential competitive supply market has produced higher bills, deceptive sales tactics, auto-renewals into higher rates, and disproportionate harm to low-income residents, seniors, communities of color, and people with limited English. Witnesses cited AG reports estimating hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges over time, described door-to-door and storefront marketing abuses, and said municipal aggregation programs have saved residents money while offering more stable rates. Several supporters said the Legislature should either ban residential competitive supply or adopt strong guardrails such as ending automatic renewals, banning incentive-based commissions, and capping rates relative to basic service. Opponents or industry representatives from the Retail Energy Advancement League, Vistra, and Constellation argued that the market can provide savings, longer-term price stability, and value-added products such as renewable options and time-of-use offerings. They said Massachusetts has already improved consumer protections through DPU proceedings, that complaints are relatively few compared with the size of the market, and that a ban would eliminate consumer choice. They also defended direct sales and commissions as normal features of a retail market, while saying they would support additional protections, licensing, bonding, and stronger oversight of bad actors. Committee members pressed both sides on whether the market truly saves money, whether automatic renewals should be banned, and whether the AG’s proposed reforms would be enough. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3972, a bill to extend utility shutoff protections during extreme heat, with Rep. Mindy Domb arguing that Massachusetts should treat extreme heat like extreme cold and protect customers facing financial hardship. Rep. Barrett also testified for H. 3450, a municipal broadband/right-of-way bill, arguing that communities need easier and cheaper access to utility poles and public rights of way to build municipal broadband. In addition, Senate Majority Leader Creem testified for S. 2239, which would bar utilities from recovering ratepayer funds for lobbying, promotions, trade association dues, and similar expenses. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• normal consumer normal consumer loans<00:08:31.599> this<00:08:31.800> avoids<00:08
• :32.399> critical<00:08:32.919> consumer loans this avoids critical consumer loans this
• Consumer Consumer Protection<00:11:34.399> okay<00:11:35.399> you<00:11:35.519> can
• can lead to more options for consumers can lead to more options for consumers can<00:27:25.240><
• ability to enforce the consumer ability to enforce the consumer protection<00:30:03.279> act<

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 733-FN, a bill on third-party litigation financing (TPLF). Representative Cole, the prime sponsor, described TPLF as outside investors financing lawsuits in which they have no personal stake, arguing that the practice is largely unregulated, can involve foreign entities, and contributes to litigation abuse, higher insurance costs, and what he called a “tort tax.” He said the bill is modeled on an NCOIL proposal and would require disclosure of TPLF agreements, with specific references to foreign-entity restrictions, consumer-protection guardrails, and reporting requirements. He also noted a few technical fixes to the draft, including adding the word “knowingly” and restoring a section that had been omitted. Committee members questioned how the bill’s foreign-entity language would work, including whether a governor or the Department of Safety would designate countries of concern, and whether the bill would bar foreign parties from using litigation funding. Cole and others clarified that the bill was intended as a reporting measure, not a ban on litigation funding itself, and that the goal was to disclose who is funding lawsuits and to what extent. Representative Sal asked whether the bill would prevent a litigant from getting outside financing; Cole answered no, emphasizing disclosure rather than prohibition. Brandon Grat of the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau testified that the bill’s enforcement provisions were too limited. He said the draft appears to give the Attorney General only a civil-penalty remedy, likely too small to deter violations, and not the broader Consumer Protection Act tools such as injunctions, restitution, or investigation authority. He also raised concerns about whether the Attorney General or Insurance Department would have proper jurisdiction, given that the product may be financial or insurance-related. Insurance Commissioner DJ Benton Court said the department sees possible benefits from transparency because disclosure of litigation funding could help insurers assess risk, improve underwriting, and potentially ease hard-market pressures, especially for nonprofits and child care providers. He also said the bill’s language likely needs further work to clarify agency authority and suggested involving the Attorney General, Insurance Department, and banking regulators. Opposition testimony came from the New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association. Marissa Chase and Samantha Hering argued the bill is one-sided because it requires disclosure only on the plaintiff side and not from defendants or insurers. They said New Hampshire already has court rules and discovery procedures that cover relevant disclosures, making the bill unnecessary, and questioned whether the existence of a funding contract is even relevant in litigation. The hearing ended with the committee continuing to discuss possible revisions and enforcement options, but no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• on the consumer complaints that our office receives.
• I'm a supervising consumer specialist in the Consumer Advocacy and Response Division, working with Bill
• We heard from 25 of their consumers.
• , because we also want to protect the consumers.
• information in my testimony.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure heard testimony on a wide range of bills involving consumer protection, auto regulation, alcohol licenses, and professional licensure. A major focus was legislation to require a one-hour domestic violence awareness training for salon and cosmetology licensees (H.323/S.200), supported by District Attorney Marion Ryan, law enforcement, and a salon industry witness who described the program’s value in identifying and helping victims. The committee also heard strong support from the Attorney General’s office for auto consumer protection legislation (S.228/H.379) that would expand used-car warranty protections, extend the Lemon Law return period to seven days after receipt of the vehicle, raise the mileage cap to 200,000 miles, and increase dealer surety bonds to $50,000. Independent dealers opposed those changes, arguing they would burden small businesses and that dealer education, not expanded liability, was the better solution. The committee also took testimony on bills related to vehicle financial products and repair information. A trade association supported GAP waiver legislation (H.4188/S.281), saying it would create clear consumer protections and standard disclosures. On right-to-repair and heavy-duty vehicle service information (S.266), engine and truck manufacturers supported an exemption for commercial vehicles, while others argued that releasing service data to the general public could create safety, cybersecurity, and emissions risks. The committee then heard extensive testimony on auto dealer franchise and warranty reimbursement legislation (S.201/H.406), with dealer groups supporting changes to warranty labor reimbursement and manufacturer groups opposing them as costly and unnecessary. Manufacturers from GM, Volvo, Toyota, Hyundai, Mazda, and others said their current time-study and appeals processes already compensate dealers fairly and that the bill would raise costs for consumers. In addition, the committee heard testimony on H.333, which would move auto damage appraiser licensing from the Division of Insurance to the Division of Occupational Licensure. Collision repair advocates supported the change, saying the current board structure leads to repeated dismissals of complaints and lacks accountability, while emphasizing that the bill is intended to protect consumers and ensure proper repair reimbursement. The hearing also included testimony in support of a local alcohol license petition for Westwood and a separate local alcohol measure for a town grant license. At the end of the hearing, the chairs announced that all docketed bills had been heard, noted that a joint poll would be held on H.4184, and the committee voted to adjourn by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I spent my first four years on consumer, or on Commerce, so consumer protection and, and get off of
• Prior to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, we had five other agencies who had the consumer finance
• Consumer Finance campaign Finance the Consumer Finance Protection<00:06:40.840> Bureau<00:06:
• Consumer Finance or or consumer Consumer Finance or or consumer protections<00:06:52.120> moving
• What can consumers themselves do?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a question of consumer satisfaction, not consumer protection.
• This is a question of consumer satisfaction, not consumer protection.
• An ad without safety information is still misleading to consumers.
• And that is why we still see ads without any risk information or side effects information.
• As a member, I'm wondering if the whole goal is to protect and ensure consumers have all the information

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It also creates confusion for consumers trying to understand rate information.
• It also creates confusion for consumers trying to understand rate information.
• access to rate information. with me here clarity while maintaining transparency and consumer access
• to rate information.
• on medical information, ensures consumer has consented to the price being based on medical information

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• THE NEXT SLIDE WILL HAVE INFORMATION ON THOSE RATES.
• I WOULD SAY BECAUSE THE RATE IS SO INDIVIDUAL TO THE CONSUMER MY RECOMMENDATION TO ANY CONSUMER WOULD
• THE FIRST STOP IF A CONSUMER HAS AN ISSUE USUALLY COMES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES CONSUMER
• THEM AS RELATED TO MAKING SURE THE CONSUMER INFORMATION COMES UP.
• HOW DOES THAT WORK FOR THE CONSUMER?

Transcript Highlights:

• DISTRIBUTES CONSUMER INFORMATION AND ADVOCATES FOR RESOLVING INSURANCE CONCERNS.
• TO THE INDUSTRY AND THE CONSUMER.
• FROM A CONSUMER SERVICES POINT OF VIEW, OUR GOAL IS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS, RIGHT?
• CONSUMER PROTECTION.
• YOU MIGHT GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT A RISK THAT MAY BE RIGHT BEFORE AND THERE IS MORE INFORMATION YOU

Transcript Highlights:

• this information gap.
• within their budget, we believe we ought to err on the side of full information for the consumers so
• they can make an informed choice.
• that information, we should provide that information.
• information up front.

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee heard several bills on AI, social media, rental cars, and account deletion. AB 316 by Assemblymember Krell would bar defendants from avoiding liability by claiming an AI system autonomously caused harm. Supporters argued it would preserve accountability as AI grows more powerful, especially in cases involving children, while opponents said existing tort law already covers these issues and warned the bill could create uncertainty and overbroad liability. The bill passed the committee 8-1. AB 656 by Assemblymember Schiavo, sponsored by Consumer Federation of California, would make it easier for users to delete social media accounts and personal information, with amendments shifting the deletion prompt into settings rather than on every screen. Supporters said platforms use dark patterns and make deletion unnecessarily difficult; opponents raised concerns about unintended deletions and possible conflicts with existing privacy law, though the author said the bill was being aligned with CCPA. The bill passed 9-0. The committee also approved the consent calendar. AB 1197 by Assemblymember Calderon would address rental car theft and misuse by allowing limited geofencing in specific situations and revising rules around renter liability when keys are returned and a police report is filed. Rental car companies and other supporters said the bill would help recover stolen or abandoned vehicles, while an opponent warned about privacy and possible consumer harms in edge cases. The bill passed 11-0. AB 1374 by Assemblymember Berman would require more upfront disclosure of the total price of rental cars, including mandatory fees, to curb hidden charges; supporters said consumers still face surprise costs, while opponents argued current law already requires disclosure and that the bill’s new wording could invite litigation. It passed 13-0.