Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome, everybody, to the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee hearing.
• This is a balanced approach that improves transparency while protecting students.
• It recognizes that protecting personal information is directly tied to protecting people.
• I will say this: this is not about protecting people from violence.
• protected from any violent actions.

Committee: House Privacy and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• The work of DPR is to protect human health.
• I think that we deserve a protection zone.
• So it's always us, the community, fighting to protect ourselves.
• So it's always us, the community fighting to protect ourselves.
• Trying to find ways we could protect our communities, how?

Summary: The joint Assembly and Senate hearing examined whether California’s pesticide program is meeting its public-protection goals, with opening remarks from committee chairs emphasizing the state’s large pesticide use, the need to transition toward sustainable pest management, and ongoing oversight including a state audit of DPR and county agricultural commissioner enforcement. The hearing also referenced recent concerns in Ladera Ranch about childhood cancer cases and the need for transparent investigation and community access to information. Panel one focused on human health and the regulatory framework. Dr. Anna Maria Mora described long-running CHAMACOS research showing widespread pesticide exposure in farmworker families, links to neurodevelopmental, respiratory, liver, and cardiometabolic harms, and greater impacts on children facing social adversity. She urged biomonitoring, better linkage of exposure data to health outcomes, regulation of chemical classes and mixtures, stronger buffers around homes and schools, and more community-based research. Professor Tim Malloy explained California’s two-tier system of DPR registration and county permitting, said the state’s program is strong but falls short on cumulative exposure analysis and alternatives assessment, and argued that DPR and counties need better tools, training, and funding to implement legally required protections. Committee members asked about biomonitoring, class-based regulation, and how to make pesticide data more usable for the public. Panel two brought testimony from environmental justice and farmworker advocates, who argued that California remains behind other jurisdictions by allowing highly hazardous pesticides, including 1,3-dichloropropene and paraquat, and by relying on a funding structure tied to pesticide sales. Witnesses said DPR often moves too slowly on reevaluations, rarely assesses combined exposures, and does not adequately account for health, environmental, and social costs or conflicts of interest involving pest control advisors. They also described inconsistent county-level implementation, weak outreach, and confusion over whether DPR or county agricultural commissioners are responsible for enforcement, and urged faster phaseouts, tiered fees, stronger local protections, and clearer accountability. Panel three represented regulated entities and agricultural stakeholders, who supported the goals of safer pest management but stressed that California’s registration process must be more predictable, transparent, and timely. They said AB 2113’s staffing and timeline reforms were important, but backlog and delays still hinder access to newer, lower-risk products and can hurt both consumer and agricultural uses. Agricultural witnesses also emphasized the need to invest more in pest prevention, invasive species detection, extension support, farmer training, and practical incentives for sustainable pest management. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with members pressing witnesses on timelines, implementation, funding, and the division of responsibility between DPR and county agencies.

Transcript Highlights:

• And Constitution protects.
• And Constitution protects. And so I'm very Constitution protects.
• This is a bill to try and protect our seniors. Our seniors need protection.
• They talked about protecting children, protecting humanity, protecting family, protecting the fiber of
• Let's ensure we protect our rights while we protect our protect our rights while we protect our children

Transcript Highlights:

• These predatory practices are consumer protection problems.
• These predatory practices are consumer protection problems.
• Basic consumer protections need to be put in place.
• And then equally, we want to make sure that we have protection from consumer protection violations for
• Acting now protects fairness at the checkout line.

Summary: The Senate Business, Trade, and Economic Development Committee heard several public hearings on consumer protection and business regulation bills. Senate Bill 6175, the WAVE Act on ticket sales, would create licensing and enforcement rules for ticket resellers, require all-in pricing and refunds, cap resale prices and fees at 110% of the original ticket price, and prohibit speculative ticketing and deceptive practices, with exemptions for some events such as agricultural fairs and sports. The sponsor and many arts, venue, labor, and consumer advocates said the bill would curb bots, fake websites, and predatory markups that harm fans and nonprofit venues; opponents from resale platforms and industry groups argued it would restrict legitimate resale, reduce consumer choice, and push transactions into less regulated channels. Public testimony was extensive and sharply divided, but no committee vote was taken on the bill during the hearing. The committee also heard Senate Bill 6230, which would require cash transactions to be rounded to the nearest five-cent increment in light of the federal decision to stop minting pennies. Retail and grocery groups generally supported the bill but asked for amendments to protect against audit and consumer-protection liability, preserve acceptance of exact change, and avoid conflicts with local ordinances and SNAP rules. The bill sponsor said the measure is meant to give businesses a clear framework for cash rounding, and staff noted the Department of Revenue would issue a revised fiscal note with minimal costs. Senate Bill 6312, concerning surveillance-based pricing in grocery establishments, would require posted prices, prohibit individualized surveillance pricing and surge pricing, and place a moratorium on electronic shelf labels in larger stores until 2030. Labor and privacy advocates supported the bill as a way to stop AI-driven price discrimination and protect workers and consumers, while retail and grocery associations and an ESL manufacturer warned the definitions were too broad and could unintentionally affect loyalty programs, discounts, and operational efficiency. After testimony, the committee suspended the five-day notice rule for the bill. The committee also heard Senate Bill 6149 on the definition of a rural county and Senate Bill 6248 on travel insurance, with testimony on the latter split between industry support for adopting a model act and state agency concerns about adjuster licensing and preserving Washington consumer and anti-discrimination protections. In executive session, the committee considered Senate Bill 6061 on the tourism self-assessment program and Senate Bill 6137 on sports wagering. The committee rejected an amendment to SB 6061 that would have allowed voluntary local tourism contributions, then advanced the bill with a due pass recommendation. It also advanced SB 6137 with a due pass recommendation. The meeting concluded after those votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Administration in terms of protecting Administration in terms of protecting the<00:14:01.440><c>
• </c><00:17:48.120><c> motans</c> defense we are going to protect motans defense we are going to protect
• So the conversation is: can we protect Minnesotans from the federal government?
• </c> single thing that we can to protect single thing that we can to protect motans<00:18:45.520><c>
• So we can do things as a government to make sure we're protecting our citizens.

Transcript Highlights:

• Military protective orders, or MPOs, are similar to civil restraining orders and provide protection on
• So there's some similarities between military protective orders and civilian protective orders or temporary
• And so we have protections across the board.
• Like, we need broad protections.
• It's we have to protect people.

Summary: The committee heard and acted on several bills. SB 479 by Senator Arreguín would allow Berkeley, Long Beach, and Pasadena, as local health jurisdictions, to use multidisciplinary homeless response teams and share specified information across departments; supporters said it would improve coordination and services for unsheltered residents, and the bill passed 9-0 to Appropriations. SB 46 by Senator Umberg would direct the Secretary of State to keep constitutionally ineligible presidential candidates off the California ballot, including anyone who has already served two terms; supporters argued it was a constitutional enforcement measure, while Senator Niello questioned whether it was needed, and it passed 6-1 to Appropriations. SB 99 by Senator Blakespear would improve coordination between military and civilian systems by requiring courts and law enforcement to account for military protective orders and notify military authorities of possible violations; the Department of Defense supported it, while the ACLU raised due process concerns, and it passed 6-0 to Appropriations. SB 719 by Senator Cabaldon would extend the sunset on state reporting about high-risk automated decision systems from 2029 to 2032, and it passed 6-0 to Appropriations. SB 300 by Senator Padilla would strengthen California’s new AI chatbot law by requiring operators to prevent minors from being exposed to sexually explicit material; supporters said the existing law was insufficient, while industry groups warned against expanding a brand-new regime before it had been tested, and it passed 9-0 to Appropriations. SB 381 by Senator Wahab would allow adult adoptees, and descendants of adoptees, to obtain original birth certificates and create a nonbinding contact preference form for birth parents; supporters described health, identity, and dignity concerns, while some members raised privacy concerns, and it passed 13-0 to the Senate Health Committee. SB 33 by Senator Cortese would eliminate the sunset on the public works contractor claim-resolution process, with supporters saying it reduces litigation and speeds payment, and it passed 10-0 to Appropriations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Military protective orders, or MPOs, are similar to civil restraining orders and provide protection on
• There are some similarities between military protective orders and civilian protective orders or temporary
• In the state of California, we protect that right. I mean, we protect that right.
• We need broad protections.
• We have to protect people, and that's what we ask the sheriffs and the police officers to do: to protect

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• How can I protect my daughter if people in our community are choosing not to protect themselves against
• We know that vaccinations are needed not only to protect oneself, but to protect those around us from
• We know that vaccinations are needed not only to protect oneself, but to protect those around us from
• April 2025, Mayor Wu, I refuse to say, protects freedoms, protect civil rights.
• Protect the people that went.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Health

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Health held a hearing on several vaccination-related bills, including proposals to eliminate non-medical or religious exemptions for school immunizations (notably H. 2554 and S. 1557), a bill to require or improve reporting and administration of immunization data and exemptions (described as the Community Immunity Act, S. 1618), and H. 2431, which would prohibit COVID-19, mRNA, or gene-altering vaccine requirements. The committee also heard testimony on H. 2463, which would classify funeral directors as public health workers for vaccine-priority purposes during emergencies. The chair reviewed testimony rules and repeatedly asked speakers to keep comments orderly and brief so the committee could hear as many people as possible. No votes were taken during the hearing. Testimony on H. 2554 and S. 1557 was sharply divided. Pediatricians, infectious disease specialists, public health advocates, and groups such as the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Massachusetts Medical Society, March of Dimes, Massachusetts Families for Vaccines, and several parents supported eliminating religious exemptions, arguing that vaccination protects medically vulnerable children and adults, improves herd immunity, and helps prevent outbreaks of measles, pertussis, and other diseases. They cited local school data showing pockets of lower coverage and incomplete reporting, and several speakers referenced outbreaks in other states and the need for stronger, more consistent reporting and exemption management. Opponents argued the bills would infringe on religious freedom and parental rights, force families to choose between faith and education, and unfairly target a small number of families; some also said Massachusetts already has high vaccination rates and that the real issue is incomplete data or the gap population rather than religious exemptions. H. 2431 drew testimony from supporters who said COVID-era mandates caused job losses, privacy concerns, and harm, and that the bill would prevent future requirements for COVID, mRNA, or gene-altering vaccines in schools, workplaces, and public settings. Supporters described personal experiences with alleged vaccine injury or mandate-related hardship. H. 2463 was supported by the Massachusetts Funeral Directors Association, which argued funeral directors work in infection-facing settings and should be eligible for vaccine priority during public health emergencies. The hearing featured extensive public testimony but no committee action beyond hearing the bills and taking questions from members.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are a protective service agency, just as DCF and Aging.
• I love, adore, and protect them fiercely.
• Robust protections against abuse are imperative.
• the critical mission of simply exercising our responsibility to protect those who need protection.
• Let's expand this protection. Thank you.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities

Summary: The Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities held a hearing on a broad slate of disability-related bills. Topics included creating a permanent Acquired Brain Injury Advisory Board (H. 231/S. 134), establishing a system for compensating guardians who serve incapacitated, unbefriended individuals through MassHealth (H. 253/S. 154), expanding Nikki’s Law to require MassHealth day habilitation programs to use the abuse registry (S. 165 and related bills), modernizing and streamlining the Disabled Persons Protection Commission’s statute and procedures (H. 243/S. 139), updating the definition of developmental disability to align more closely with federal law and include people such as those with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (H. 276/S. 150), removing outdated and offensive terminology from the General Laws (H. 232/S. 137), and an autism education reform bill (H. 286). Several bills had no sign-ups, and the committee also noted related measures on cueing and prompting in PCA programs (H. 277/S. 157).

Transcript Highlights:

• It protects taxpayer simple things.
• Without these protections, view it.
• In fact, it does the protections.
• be protected.
• </c> otherwise be protected. otherwise be protected.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> over protection. over protection.
• </c> protected class. protected class.
• , protect the serious, protect the girls, protect the boys,<00:47:51.360><c> protect</c><00:47:51.760
• </c> boys, protect our women and men, protect boys, protect our women and men, protect our<00:47:54.600
• It protects girl sports. It protects equal opportunity.

Transcript Highlights:

• in those who are supposed to protect us.
• The system exists to protect officers and families.
• But it also provides critically disability protection and death protection for the families of police
• That protection... ...a protective order is issued.
• A protective order was issued against her.

Bills: HB27 , HB71 , HB214 , HB225 , HB244 , HB306 , HB366 , HB446 , HB473 , HB514 , HB1043 , HB1082 , SB127

Committee: House Civil Law and Procedure

Transcript Highlights:

• This is as much a public safety bill as it is a consumer protection bill.
• Cronin: protecting the personal information of Massachusetts judges.
• Cronin, protecting the personal information of Massachusetts judges.
• This kind of important data is vital to protect.
• protected to make sure that their personal data is still safe.

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:

• We all want to protect newborns. And we all want to protect the kids.
• We all want to protect newborns.
• The government's supposed to protect rights in the first place.
• We are a state that fights hard to protect life.
• We're not protecting rights; we're ignoring the responsibility.

Committee: House Health and Welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 195 provides protections for physicians' personal assets, House Bill 195 provides protections
• Every child deserves protection, not concealment.
• What specific confidentiality protections in current law do you feel are insufficient, the protections
• It protects them in their prosecution.
• youth in state custody are protected.

Bills: HB195 , HB279 , SB30 , HB234 , HB292 , SB100 , SB23 , SB221 , SB261 , SB264

Committee: House House Judiciary

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 195, which would protect the personal assets of certain health care providers from collection in medical malpractice judgments. Supporters said the bill would help recruit and retain physicians, especially in high-liability fields like obstetrics, while opponents argued broader malpractice reform should focus on insurance and legal representation. Members discussed whether the bill’s definition of “independent provider” matched existing law, and the committee adopted a friendly amendment to add osteopathic physician. HB 195 then passed on a 9-0 vote. The committee then heard House Bill 279, a health care privacy and safety measure for reproductive and gender-affirming care. The sponsor said it would strengthen protections for sensitive health information, limit geofencing around clinics, allow providers to keep personal addresses confidential, and remove provider names from medication abortion packaging. Supporters framed it as a privacy and safety bill; opponents said it would weaken parental access, create confusion for emergency physicians, and shield abortion access. After extensive questions about HIPAA, emergency care, and data collection, the bill passed 6-3. Senate Bill 30, which would repeal the requirement that induced abortions be reported to the state registrar, drew similar testimony. The sponsor and supporters argued the reporting requirement is outdated, medically unnecessary, and exposes providers to surveillance and possible out-of-state targeting; opponents said the data supports transparency and public health oversight. Members questioned what data would be lost and how the state currently uses the reports. SB 30 passed 6-3. The committee also heard House Bill 234 on fentanyl definitions, with law enforcement and business groups supporting clearer criminal penalties; members and the sponsor worked through possible amendment language to better align the bill with existing controlled-substance definitions, and the discussion was continued for a revised draft. Finally, House Bill 292, the New Mexico Prison Rape Elimination Act, received broad support from advocacy groups and passed the committee substitute 7-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• Number two, it protects librarians and educators.
• I beg you that Massachusetts legislators need to push back, protect us, and protect Massachusetts residents
• These attempts do not protect children; they harm them.
• Book banners often employ the phrase 'protect the children.'
• Protect our librarians, protect our booksellers.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Tourism, Arts and Cultural Development

Summary: The hearing focused on several bills related to access to library materials, including measures addressing book bans and censorship in public and school libraries, as well as legislation on digital library collections and e-book licensing. Committee leaders said testimony would be limited to three minutes and encouraged written submissions. Early testimony from Chair Brian Murray highlighted H. 3595, which would address challenges facing public libraries and digital resource collections by limiting restrictive publisher-library contract terms, protecting patron confidentiality, and creating a special legislative commission to study the issue. A large number of legislators, librarians, authors, students, publishers, and advocacy groups testified in support of the free expression bills, including H. 3594 and S. 2328, arguing that book challenges in Massachusetts disproportionately target LGBTQ+ and BIPOC titles and that librarians and educators need protection from retaliation and harassment. Witnesses described local incidents of book removals, threats, and pressure campaigns, and several said the bills would create transparent challenge procedures, keep materials available during reviews, and ensure decisions are made by trained professionals rather than political actors. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley’s office also submitted support, and multiple speakers cited national trends and Massachusetts-specific censorship attempts. Testimony on the digital access bills emphasized that e-books and audiobooks are essential for readers with disabilities, homebound patrons, students, and others who rely on accessible formats, but that current licensing terms are far more expensive and restrictive than print purchasing. Library representatives said libraries spend millions on digital content, face long wait times for popular titles, and often must repeatedly re-rent the same materials. Legal and library experts supported the proposed commission as a practical step toward fairer licensing and stronger bargaining power for libraries. The hearing ended after extensive testimony; no votes or final committee action were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no extreme risk protection.
• On 1B, you define. protect the the extreme risk protective orders as those that are not issued on the
• The Supremacy Clause doesn't protect it.
• , their market is somewhat protected, is it not?
• and it protects people who shouldn't be buying.

Bills: SJR57 , SCR8 , SB8 , SB14 , SB24 , SB108 , SB112 , SB125 , SB213 , SB251 , SB315 , SB318 , SB371 , SB378 , SB379 , SB472 , SB487 , SB502 , SB513 , SB565 , SB621 , SB650 , SB689 , SB707 , SB710 , SB761 , SB763 , SB815 , SB854 , SB875 , SB896 , SB916 , SB925 , SB958 , SB961 , SB965 , SB973 , SB987 , SB990 , SB995 , SB1006 , SB1018 , SB1019 , SB1024 , SB1026 , SB1146 , SB1194 , SB1198 , SB1253 , SB1330 , SB1343 , SB1362 , SB1379 , SB1497 , SB1498 , SB1527 , SB1532 , SB1547 , SB1596 , SJR36 , SJR12 , SJR57 , SCR22 , SCR12 , SCR8 , SB565 , SB765 , SB62 , SB666 , SB707 , SB888 , SB687 , SB847 , SB1248 , SB14 , SB1006 , SB504 , SB925 , SB995 , SB857 , SB305 , SB296 , SB284 , SB815 , SB1379 , SB1497 , SB1499 , SB1498 , SB241 , SB304 , SB621 , SB1023 , SB1024 , SB686 , SB112 , SB371 , SB204 , SB609 , SB670 , SB502 , SB850 , SB854 , SB413 , SB1362 , SB1346 , SB1033 , SB1220 , SB1073 , SB810 , SB987 , SB1539 , SB447 , SB875 , SB406 , SB985 , SB965 , SB1119 , SB1505 , SB24 , SB1194 , SB1253 , SB1215 , SB1532 , SB1302 , SB856 , SB650 , SB583 , SB673 , SB213 , SB681 , SB1172 , SB1252 , SB378 , SB1343 , SB608 , SB487 , SB955 , SB957 , SB988 , SB990 , SB1019 , SB1021 , SB1120 , SB251 , SB958 , SB761 , SB541 , SB315 , SB379 , SB1018 , SB1737 , SB266 , SB1415 , SB1527 , SB125 , SB599 , SB1330 , SB53 , SB916 , SB896 , SB1352 , SB973 , SB785 , SB710 , SB472 , SB1450 , SB1502 , SB1566 , SB414 , SB1062 , SB1547 , SB961 , SB1038 , SB513 , SB578 , SB711 , SB746 , SB942 , SB1404 , SB1448 , SB1738 , SB108 , SB8 , SB318 , SB507 , SB533 , SB689 , SB1026 , SB1349 , SB1355 , SB1433 , SB1434 , SB1596 , SB1403 , SB1198 , SB1146 , SB763 , SB667 , SB1059 , SB617 , SB1567 , SB503 , SJR37 , SB16 , SB310 , SB311 , SB396 , SB505 , SB1209 , SB1210 , SB1470 , SB264 , SB924 , SB1029 , SB1185 , SB1202 , SB1358 , SB1364 , SB1569 , SB1697 , SB1376 , SB1228 , SB519 , SB878 , SB1350 , SB462 , SB1535 , SB827 , SB1585 , SB207 , SB1207 , SB1619 , SB1396 , SB920 , SB1484 , SB1273 , SB1741

Transcript Highlights:

• It would protect public health.
• We must uphold that right and protect 500,000 residents who currently do not have any legal protection
• , and removing this natural protection through mining makes the aquifer particularly vulnerable to protection
• If we don't protect our soil biome, we're dead.
• You have the opportunity to protect the natural resources and to protect climate stability, not just

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

Summary: The hearing covered a broad set of environmental and water-related bills, with much of the testimony focused on blue economy and circular economy proposals, drought management, drinking water safety, flood resilience, and water infrastructure funding. Supporters of bills such as H. 987 and H. 988 described grant programs for blue economy workforce development, research, small businesses, and public education about a circular economy. Other speakers backed measures on coastal erosion research, recreational boating dredging, cranberry water-right transfers, sand mining oversight, and a voucher program for home water filtration in PFAS-impacted communities. Several elected officials and advocates also urged passage of bills to require private well testing, improve school drinking water safety, and address sand mining pollution and PFAS contamination. Water supply and drought issues drew extensive testimony. Senator Eldridge and others supported legislation to let the state, through DEP and the drought management task force, impose regional water-use restrictions during droughts and make the task force permanent in statute. Advocates from watershed groups, farms, and environmental organizations said the current town-by-town approach is inconsistent and ineffective, and they described drought impacts on rivers, farms, private wells, and wildfire risk. A related bill on private wells was supported as a way to help homeowners test and remediate contaminated wells, especially in rural areas without public water. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to allow the Lynnfield Water District to join the MWRA, with local officials saying the move would help address PFAS and other contamination and improve supply reliability. Another major panel supported a water infrastructure funding bill, arguing that aging drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems need major new investment, including support for PFAS treatment, sewer rate relief, biosolids research, and regional interconnections. Members asked about costs, funding sources, and the relationship to existing revolving loan funds; witnesses said the bill would need to be paired with future bond funding and new revenue ideas. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chairs repeatedly invited written testimony and noted the large number of speakers.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> danger excuse me government protects danger excuse me government protects those<00:19:20.360><c>
• elderly</c> children protections from the elderly children protections from the elderly protections<
• protecting the parents.
• protecting the parents.
• </c> protection laws are designed to protect protection laws are designed to protect our<01:03:10.279

Transcript Highlights:

• The board's mission and reaffirm our commitment to public protection.
• And thank you for protecting that right. Thank you. Thank you for protecting that right. Thank you.
• The law establishes three key protections.
• the interests of its licensees over public protection.
• I specifically want to emphasize the issue of title protection.