Video & Transcript Research : 'Consumer Protection'
Page 97 of 500
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee 3/4/25
Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- <00:05:47.039>
is enforce that rule um what protection is enforce that rule um what protection - Heat resistance and protection from water intrusion protect the integrity of sensors, brake lines, and
- <01:05:42.839>
products are then applied to Consumer products are then applied to Consumer - improv Landmark groundwater protection improv Landmark groundwater protection legislation<01:11:
- Is that for sale to consumers?
NY
New York 2025-2026 Regular Session
New York State Senate Session - 04/15/2026
New York Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- protections.
- Is consistent, and we want to make sure that standard is set, that consumers deserve this protection.
- I believe that a bill like mine, which focuses on consumer protections, is at the intersection of both
- I BELIEVE THAT A BILL LIKE MINE WHICH FOCUSES ON CONSUMER PROTECTIONS, IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF BOTH
- I think it is also a good consumer protection bill, as it is a good energy bill. >> Madam President,
Summary:
The Senate convened, approved the prior journal, and then took up a series of utility and public service bills and resolutions. A resolution sponsored by Senator Scarcella-Spanton designating April 9, 2026, as Yellow Ribbon Day was adopted after remarks honoring veterans, active-duty service members, and their families. The chamber then moved through several Public Service Law measures focused on utility affordability, consumer protections, and PSC procedures, with some bills laid aside and others advanced.
Among the bills passed were measures by Senators Mayer, Cleare, Hinchey, Comrie, and Parker. Debate on the Mayer bill centered on limiting utility expenses and fees recoverable in rate cases; supporters said it was part of a broader package to reform PSC practices, while opponents argued it would not lower current bills and had been softened from earlier versions. The Webb bill creating a residential utility usage monitoring program drew extended debate over whether it would meaningfully reduce costs, who would pay for the program, and whether it could lead to government monitoring of household usage; supporters said it would give consumers more control and transparency, while critics said it would not lower rates. The Gonzalez bill, which would add consumer protections during PSC investigations and delay shutoffs in certain circumstances, also passed after questions about whether it applied to rate cases, with the sponsor saying rate cases were explicitly excluded.
Several members explained their votes, with supporters emphasizing affordability, transparency, and consumer protection, and opponents arguing the package would not address immediate rate relief and could burden ratepayers or encourage nonpayment. Senator Tedisco and others criticized PSC appointments and state energy policy, while Democratic sponsors argued the bills were part of a longer-term effort to reform utility regulation and address climate and affordability concerns. The chamber restored multiple bills to the non-controversial calendar before final votes, and the recorded results showed passage of the major utility bills by substantial margins, along with one amendment appeal being ruled nongermane and rejected.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Committee on State and Local Government - 02/18/25
State and Local Government
Transcript Highlights:
- >
was Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created - <01:09:45.480>
Finance <01:09:45.839>protection the the the Consumer Finance protection - the the the Consumer Finance protection board<01:09:47.159>
um <01:09:47.880>Consumer < - <01:10:57.800>
the <01:10:57.960>things consumer protection um and in the things consumer - So we appreciate it where we can find good cause, good consumer protection laws.
MN
Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session
Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection - 02/27/25
Commerce and Consumer Protection
Transcript Highlights:
- [Music] Welcome to the Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection, February 27, 2025.
- <00:33:04.399>
protection <00:33:05.399>it's statute was consumer protection it's statute - was consumer protection it's it's<00:33:06.000>
based <00:33:06.519>upon <00:33:07.519> - <00:58:36.520>
protection <00:58:37.240>uh <00:58:37.400>restitution consumer protection - uh restitution consumer protection uh restitution account<00:58:39.640>
and <00:58:40.480>
FL
Florida 2025 Regular Session
March 5, 2025 - 01:30 PM
Transcript Highlights:
- Will this amendment provide the protections required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- So is this going to protect them from fraud, or will it protect their... ...protect them from fraud,
- Is it going to protect them from potential insolvency? Is it going to protect them?
- But it truly is keeping those consumer protections in place, but ensuring our small businesses, they're
- But it truly is keeping those consumer protections in place, but ensuring our small businesses, they're
Summary:
The committee met with a quorum present and heard several insurance- and financial-services-related bills. HB 315 was temporarily postponed. The chair also noted that, following the speaker’s remarks, members should expect additional special meetings as the committee investigates insurance-related issues and seeks transparency and the truth.
HB 497, relating to nonprofit agricultural organization health coverage, was presented as a way to give Florida Farm Bureau members—especially farmers, ranchers, and small business owners—more affordable health coverage options. An amendment added statutory placement changes, disclosures that the product is not commercially sold, and annual financial audits. Members discussed ACA-related protections, fraud, and insolvency concerns, and the bill received support from Florida Farm Bureau and was reported favorably 16-0. HB 379, the annual securities package, updated exemptions, foreign jurisdiction rules, the Florida Invest Local Exemption, merger-and-acquisition broker rules, fingerprinting requirements, and technical issues in the Securities Guarantee Fund. Three amendments clarified entity definitions and fingerprint/live-scan requirements; the bill drew support from industry and OFR and passed favorably 17-0.
The PCS for HB 147 on consumer debt collection clarified prohibited communications during nighttime hours, with the sponsor and supporters explaining the intent was to allow email while restricting other forms of contact and reduce litigation over passive communications. Members and public witnesses discussed ambiguity in the wording, and the sponsor said further cleanup language may still be needed; the PCS was reported favorably 17-0. HB 655 on pet insurance and wellness programs created a regulatory framework for pet insurance, drew support from industry and humane society representatives, and passed favorably 17-0. HB 367 on home and service warranty association financial requirements allowed financial compliance through multiple contractual liability insurance policies and alternative parent-company documentation; an amendment corrected cross-references and duplicative language, and after questions about consumer protections and insolvency, the bill was reported favorably 17-0. Finally, HB 7003 preserved a public-records exemption for sensitive financial technology sandbox application materials; members discussed the sandbox concept and possible future issues, but no amendments were taken and the bill passed favorably 17-0. The meeting adjourned without objection.
CA
Transcript Highlights:
- Throughout my tenure on the board, I have been proud of our steadfast commitment to consumer protection
- and our role have been proud of our staff's commitment to consumer protection and our role as a leader
- The board is a consumer protection agency charged with regulating the businesses, people, and products
- So the board is a consumer protection agency, but consumer protection embodies a number of different
- I think a lot of times people think consumer protection and they think enforcement.
Summary:
The joint Assembly and Senate business committees held a sunset review hearing on the California State Board of Pharmacy, with board leadership describing the board’s consumer-protection role and its priorities around access, enforcement, and updating pharmacy law. The board emphasized a proposed shift toward a standard-of-care model for pharmacists, arguing it would reduce rigid protocol requirements and improve access to services such as HIV PrEP/PEP, contraception, and naloxone. Board representatives also discussed pharmacy deserts, possible fee waivers for pharmacies in underserved areas, concerns about payer practices contributing to closures, continuing education audits, and a request to restore more flexibility in licensure decisions and probationary monitoring for applicants with certain criminal histories.
A major focus of the hearing was the board’s ongoing compounding regulations, especially the treatment of sterile versus nonsterile compounding and substances such as glutathione and methylcobalamin. The board said the proposal was not a ban on those substances and described the rulemaking as grounded in federal law, USP standards, and public comment, noting the process had gone through multiple modified texts and hearings. Testimony from stakeholders was sharply divided: pharmacists, veterinarians, firefighters, naturopathic doctors, and patient advocates warned the rules were restricting access to compounded medications and harming patients and first responders, while the California Medical Association, psychiatric physicians, and PhRMA raised concerns that the board’s proposals could expand pharmacist authority beyond training, affect physician practice, or create safety risks. Other public comments addressed pharmacy technician ratios, remote processing, flavoring medications, hospital-specific regulation, budget and enforcement transparency, and whether the board should add members with community compounding or pharmacy technician expertise.
Committee members also asked about the board’s oversight priorities and the rationale for its standard-of-care proposal. Board staff explained that consumer protection includes education, licensing, policy, and enforcement, with the highest-priority enforcement cases being those posing imminent public harm. After public testimony concluded, the chairs thanked participants and adjourned the sunset review hearing, announcing an immediate transition to the joint informational hearing on the Department of Cannabis Control.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- Tim Stevenson, Department of State Health Services, Consumer Protection.
- I've helped in 50 states to create some sort of law to protect consumer access.
- protect public health and safety without eliminating consumer access.
- protect public health and safety without eliminating consumer access.
- And that's how you would protect consumers and give law enforcement clarity.
Summary:
The House Committee on Public Health heard House Bill 5, a proposal to ban THC products outside the Texas Compassionate Use Program while allowing non-intoxicating CBD and CBG products under tighter regulation. Chair Van Deaver gave a lengthy background on the 2018 federal Farm Bill and Texas’s 2019 hemp law, arguing that the lack of guardrails allowed a large, unregulated THC market to develop. HB 5 would impose licensing fees, product registration, testing and inspection requirements, and restrictions intended to keep products away from children.
Invited witnesses from law enforcement strongly supported the bill. Steve Dye of the Texas Police Chiefs Association and Brian Hawthorne of the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas argued that THC consumables are widely mislabeled, often far more potent than advertised, and linked to youth access, impaired driving, and organized crime. Both said regulation would be ineffective and would amount to legalization, while a ban would be easier for officers to enforce. They also emphasized support for the Texas Compassionate Use Program and said medical THC should remain available.
Dr. Peter Stout of the Texas Association of Crime Lab Directors and Alice Amelot of Texas DPS testified as resource witnesses about forensic testing. They said current lab resources are already stretched thin, that quantitative testing for THC and related cannabinoids is expensive and time-consuming, and that a ban would simplify enforcement because labs could focus on presence/absence testing rather than concentration. Amelot said DPS labs are neutral on the bill but explained that mislabeled products and inaccurate certificates of analysis are common. Committee members asked about traffic safety, impairment, youth use, and the costs of enforcement and lab testing; witnesses repeatedly said the bill would reduce complexity for law enforcement but that any approach would still require more resources for labs.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Floor Session Jun 18th, 2026
California House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Users, in my opinion, need strong consumer protections, and this bill does exactly that.
- As we all know, California often leads the nation in setting policy to protect consumers.
- It would exempt them from security laws and the consumer protections put in place a hundred years ago
- I think that the state should be on the side of protecting consumers.
- I also want to address the point made about lack of consumer protections.
MN
Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session
House committee hears bill to ban pet store sales of cats and dogs, HF2627 4/1/25
Transcript Highlights:
- <00:08:55.360>
protections, <00:08:56.160>no guarantees, no consumer protections, no - in place and consumer protections in place in our state.
- in place and consumer protections in place in our state.
that <00:14:25.440>I consumer protection is something that I consumer protection is something- <00:37:55.560>
protection animal welfare and consumer protection animal welfare and consumer
MO
Missouri 2026 Regular Session
Financial Institutions Jan 14th, 2026 at 12:00 pm
Financial Institutions
Transcript Highlights:
- For those reasons, I highly support consumer protection and enforcement by the Attorney General's Consumer
- We work well with the Division of Finance, specifically the Consumer Protection Division.
- I'm about responsibility, transparency, and I think Missouri consumers deserve to have their money protected
- I'd like to see some amendments to protect the consumer. I think the consumer needs to be free...
- I'd like to see some amendments to protect the consumer.
FL
Florida 2026 5th Special Session
Banking and Insurance Jan 13th, 2026
Transcript Highlights:
- that consumers might have is antithetical to what this committee should be doing, which is to protect
- But for those others and many others, and there's many consumer protections remain, the AG can come in
- But for those others and many others, and there's many consumer protections remain, the AG can come in
- policyholders and protecting consumers.
- There is no greater champion than a good, ethical professional public adjuster to protect the consumers
Summary:
The Committee on Banking and Insurance met with a quorum present and took up several bills, beginning with SB 834 on health care sharing ministries and insurance agents. Senator Yarbrough presented the bill to repeal a recent restriction on licensed insurance agents marketing or selling faith-based health care sharing programs. Supporters argued the change restores free speech and consumer education while preserving existing consumer protections; opponents said the bill was unnecessary and could increase confusion or misuse of agents and brokers. The committee adopted a title amendment and then reported the bill favorably after debate, with Senator Pizzo raising concerns about consumer reliance and lack of guaranteed coverage.
The committee then approved SB 642 on foreign and alien bail bond insurers, SB 394 on reinsurance intermediary managers, and SB 266 on public adjuster contracts. SB 266 would let vulnerable adults rescind public adjuster contracts at any time without penalty; it drew support from consumer and industry groups, with some discussion about estimates and claim work product. The committee also passed SB 832 on residential property insurance transparency, which requires rate transparency reports and a consumer resource center at OIR, and adds a provision excluding land value from homeowners coverage calculations in most cases. Testimony on SB 832 was generally supportive of the transparency goal, though insurers said some of the required cost breakdowns may be difficult to produce as written.
The committee next considered SB 1028 on Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, which would create a commercial lines clearinghouse to move eligible policyholders into the private market and reduce Citizens’ commercial exposure. Supporters said it would lower taxpayer risk and improve competition; a speaker suggested additional changes to deductibles, water-damage caps, and repair practices. The bill was reported favorably after a delete-all amendment and supportive debate from Senator Boyd. Finally, the committee passed SB 540 on the Office of Financial Regulation, which adds cybersecurity requirements for certain licensees, updates oversight of investment advisers and money service businesses, adjusts some charter and meeting rules for financial institutions and credit unions, and includes amendments clarifying repossession/deficiency claims, family office exemptions, and virtual credit union meetings. The meeting ended with all of the considered bills reported favorably and the committee adjourned.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Jun 21st, 2026 at 10:00 am
Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure
Transcript Highlights:
- So we're going to start today on House Bill 426 and Senate Bill 263, an act to protect consumers from
- In strong support of House Bill 426 and Senate Bill 263, an act to protect consumers from contributing
- Bill 263, enacted to protect consumers from contributing to inhumane animal testing for cosmetics.
- As such, we urge you to support House Bill 426 and Senate Bill 263 to protect consumers from contributing
- As such, we urge you to support House Bill 426 and Senate Bill 263 to protect consumers, support House
Summary:
The committee heard testimony on several bills, with the longest discussion focused on House Bill 426 and Senate Bill 263, which would prohibit the sale in Massachusetts of cosmetics known to rely on vertebrate animal testing. Supporters from Animal Defenders International, Humane World for Animals, and the Animal Rescue League said animal testing is cruel, outdated, and unreliable, and pointed to non-animal alternatives and similar laws in other states and countries. No opposition was heard on that bill during the excerpt, and witnesses urged the committee to report it favorably.
The committee also took testimony on House Bill 4543, which would clarify an existing pipe-fitting exemption for certain work performed on property owned by industrial plants, utilities, colleges, and similar institutions. A representative for Construction Industries of Massachusetts supported the bill, saying it would preserve longstanding practice for outside contractors doing yard piping work. Pipefitters Local 537 opposed it, arguing the work is properly licensed pipefitting and that the bill would weaken licensing standards and undermine state inspectors.
Another major topic was Senate Bill 237 on regulating self-checkouts in grocery establishments. The Mass AFL-CIO and UFCW Local 1445 supported the bill, saying self-checkout has reduced staffing, increased worker stress and customer conflict, and contributed to theft and safety problems. Workers described being responsible for multiple machines at once, verbal abuse, and even assaults, and said the bill’s staffing and machine limits would improve safety and customer service. The committee also heard extensive testimony on House Bill 355, which would allow veterinarians to establish a client-patient relationship via telehealth; ASPCA, MSPCA, and several veterinarians supported it as a way to expand access to care, while the Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association and several veterinarians opposed it, arguing that an in-person exam is essential for proper diagnosis and that telemedicine should only follow an in-person VCPR.
Finally, the committee heard testimony on House Bill 330, Senate Bill 221, and House Bill 371, which would preempt local boards of health from adopting tobacco-related age or sales restrictions beyond the statewide standard. Public health advocates opposed the bills, arguing they would block local innovation and undermine nicotine-free generation policies adopted by municipalities, while retailers and tobacco trade groups supported them as necessary to preserve a uniform statewide age-21 standard and avoid confusion for consumers and businesses. No votes or final actions were taken during the excerpt.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Floor Session May 27th, 2026
California House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- We need to make sure that our laws are protecting California consumers, making sure that prices are going
- AB 1921 provides needed consumer protection for video game users, requiring a publisher to proactively
- Assembly Bill 2564 by Assembly Member Ward and others, relating to consumer protection.
- California has always been a leader in consumer protections, and we must ensure that we are not left
- Today I rise to present AB 2253, a bill that would protect consumers from deceptive recycled content
Summary:
The Assembly met in session, established a quorum, approved dispensing with the previous day’s journal, and then took up a long third-reading file. Early procedural actions included moving AB 1589 to the inactive file and continuing reconsideration items. The chamber then considered a series of bills largely focused on immigration enforcement, detention, worker protections, child care, voting access, and related public services.
Several immigration-related measures passed, including AB 2393 on damages for false imprisonment/arrest, AB 1994 on an immigrant victims’ rights and resources card, AB 1929 on health plan investment disclosures, AB 1633 imposing a tax on for-profit detention facilities, AB 1650 requiring decals on rental vehicles used for enforcement, AB 1655 protecting CalWORKs benefits when a child is detained, and AB 1896 disqualifying people who participated in immigration enforcement from certain public employment. AB 2230, which would bar immigration enforcement near polling places and child care facilities, also passed after extensive debate. Supporters framed these bills as accountability and protection for vulnerable communities; opponents argued they targeted federal law enforcement, were unnecessary, or raised constitutional concerns. AB 1851 on statewide school mental-health guidance also passed unanimously.
After the midday recess, the Assembly returned and continued with more bills tied to immigration impacts and child welfare. AB 2379 passed with urgency, requiring child care providers to be informed of constitutional rights and trained on protections when confronted by immigration enforcement. AB 2460 passed to update school behavioral-health referral protocols for students affected by immigration enforcement trauma. AB 2495 passed to expand prohibitions on employer immigration-related threats, and AB 2662 was presented as a way for California to monitor and document federal enforcement actions and report on their community impacts. Throughout the day, the floor featured repeated exchanges over whether the bills addressed real problems or were political messaging, but the measures that came to a vote generally advanced with majority support.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
Senate Energy and Natural Resources (03/11/2025)
Energy and Natural Resources
Transcript Highlights:
- Advocate, there would be related to the actual job of the Consumer Advocate, which is to protect ratepayer
- Advocate, there would be related to the actual job of the Consumer Advocate, which is to protect ratepayer
- Advocate, there would be related to the actual job of the Consumer Advocate, which is to protect ratepayer
- Advocate, there would be related to the actual job of the Consumer Advocate, which is to protect ratepayer
- there would be related to the actual job of the Consumer Advocate, which is to protect ratepayer interest
MN
Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session
Minnesota House passes agriculture finance bill, HF2446 4/24/25
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- This bill also provides a number of protections that will protect both workers and consumers in our state
- Both are critical funding for consumer protections at the state level as the FDA suspends quality control
- This bill also provides a number of protections that will protect both workers and consumers in our state
- This bill also provides a number of protections that will protect both workers and consumers in our state
- This bill also provides a number of protections that will protect both workers and consumers in our state
AL
Alabama 2025 Regular Session
Alabama Senate Banking and Insurance Committee Apr 2nd, 2025
Banking and Insurance
Transcript Highlights:
- Finally, we just want to make sure that Alabama businesses and consumers are protected against this growing
- Supporting these efforts means standing up for fairness, economic freedom, and consumer protection.
- Consumer protections in all products that enter the state then licensed brokers, many of whom are here
- We believe that this is reasonable consumer protection, as well as those discussed above should apply
- An 85% loss ratio in Alabama is crucial for protecting consumers, improving access to dental care, encouraging
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Banning cryptocurrency kiosks 2/26/26
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- employee salaries for consumer employee salaries for consumer protection.<00:14:54.399>
We crypto kiosks will help protect crypto kiosks will help protect consumers,<00:27:58.399>- protect consumers in the already done to protect consumers in the state. state. state.
support - >
for protect consumers and affordability for protect consumers and affordability for for<01:03 - <01:04:44.240>
in concerned about protecting consumers in concerned about protecting consumers
Summary:
The committee heard House File 3642, as amended by the DE1, which would prohibit virtual currency kiosks in Minnesota. The author, Chair Kaggel, said the bill is intended to stop scammers from using crypto kiosks to defraud vulnerable people, especially older adults, because the transactions are often irreversible and hard to trace. Representative Perryman spoke in support, describing local fraud cases and saying the issue had come to her attention through St. Cloud residents and police. The bill was laid over for further work with the Department of Commerce and other interested members.
Testimony from law enforcement and advocates strongly supported the ban. A St. Cloud police sergeant said the problem is statewide and described a case in which a 78-year-old woman lost $80,000 after being directed to a kiosk. A Woodbury detective said current safeguards, including warnings, limits, and refund provisions, have not stopped weekly victimization and that scammers coach victims to bypass protections. An AARP Minnesota volunteer said kiosks are a preferred vehicle for scammers because they move stolen funds quickly and are especially harmful to older adults, and he noted that the 2024 consumer protections have not been enough.
The Department of Commerce also supported the bill, saying crypto kiosks are a growing fraud vector and citing 120 complaints over three years, nearly $1 million in reported losses, and 70 cases with $540,000 in losses already in 2025. The department said many victims do not report losses, so the true amount is likely higher. In contrast, Coinflip’s general counsel opposed a ban and argued that fraud should be addressed through stronger regulation, refunds, blockchain analytics, and customer-service requirements rather than prohibiting a legal product. He said scams would continue through other channels if kiosks were banned. In discussion, members asked about the number of kiosks, how long they have been operating in Minnesota, and the scale of losses; the department said there are about 350 licensed kiosks operated by 8 to 10 operators, though the total number may be higher.
FL
Florida 2026 5th Special Session
Regulated Industries Jan 20th, 2026
Transcript Highlights:
- consumers and protect ratepayers.
- Florida can welcome advanced infrastructure, protect consumers, and stay competitive at the same time
- But several provisions in the legislation before this committee go beyond consumer protection.
- We do have to protect the consumers.
- our consumers and particularly making sure that our local governments in Protecting our consumers and
Summary:
The Committee on Regulated Industries heard and voted on several bills. SB 986 would prohibit smoking or vaping marijuana in public places and also restrict smoking in rooms and bars; the sponsor said it is intended to protect public health and outdoor spaces, while the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association supported the goal but raised concerns about impacts on designated smoking areas, and cannabis advocates warned about unintended effects on patients and property rights. The committee reported SB 986 favorably.
The committee also passed SB 678, which restores statutory authority for DBPR’s long-standing rule allowing alcohol distributors to deduct unsellable alcohol from monthly excise taxes; a strike-all amendment was adopted, including retroactive application to January 1, 2025, and the bill was reported favorably. SB 800, which increases penalties for repeat unlicensed engineering practice and creates an engineering student loan assistance program for engineers working for state agencies and water management districts, was amended and reported favorably as well.
Members then considered SB 408 on vaccine advertising and liability. The sponsor argued the bill would address declining public trust in vaccines by allowing claims against manufacturers that advertise in Florida, while opponents said the measure is preempted by federal law, raises First Amendment concerns, and would create unnecessary litigation. After extensive testimony and debate, the committee reported SB 408 favorably. The committee also heard SB 484 on data centers, which would set PSC tariff requirements so large load customers pay their own costs, preserve local planning authority, and limit water permits for large data centers; testimony was mixed, with supporters emphasizing ratepayer protections and economic benefits and critics warning about overregulation and confidentiality limits. The bill was reported favorably.
Finally, the committee approved SB 1118, which creates a time-limited public records exemption for certain data center development information held by local governments, after the sponsor said it was meant to prevent extended NDAs while still allowing local notice and input. SB 1050, requiring veterinarians to provide written prescriptions so pet owners can choose their pharmacy, was also reported favorably. The meeting ended after several members recorded votes on bills they had missed.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee Mar 18th, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- We’re going to call the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee hearing to order.
- Without legislation to protect workers and consumers from companies that hold all the power and resources
- trying to protect something.
- Our office pursues public interest cases under California's unfair competition law to protect consumers
- We'll adjourn the Committee on Consumer Protection and Privacy. I said that backwards.
Summary:
The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee met with a new membership roster and adopted its committee rules after quorum was established. The hearing then began with AB 412, the AI Copyright Transparency Act, which would require generative AI developers to provide copyright holders notice when registered copyrighted works are used in training data. The author and supporters, including SAG-AFTRA, the Transparency Coalition, voice actors, writers, labor groups, and other creators, argued the bill would give artists a practical way to learn whether their works were used and to vindicate their rights. Opponents, including EFF, CalChamber, RIAA, CCIA, Chamber of Progress, Bay Area Council, BSA, and TechNet, said the proposal was technically unworkable, could burden startups, conflict with existing law and pending litigation, and raise federal preemption concerns. Members discussed the bill’s amendments, including a fingerprinting approach and narrowing the bill to model developers, and the committee voted 8-2 to pass AB 412 as amended to the Judiciary Committee.
The committee then heard AB 446, which would prohibit “surveillance pricing,” or the use of personal data to charge different prices for the same product or service. The author and supporters, including Consumer Watchdog, UFCW, labor organizations, and consumer/privacy groups, described examples of differential pricing tied to device type, location, shopping behavior, and digital price tags, and argued the bill would protect consumers from discriminatory and predatory pricing. Business and industry opponents, including CalChamber, grocers, retailers, travel, broadband, and other associations, said the bill could conflict with the CCPA, interfere with loyalty and rewards programs, and create confusion about personalized discounts and dynamic pricing. The discussion focused on how the bill would treat loyalty programs, whether existing privacy law already covers the issue, and whether the proposal would unintentionally affect legitimate discounts and promotions.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy Jun 21st, 2026 at 10:30 am
Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- protection mix.
- Increasing the batch to 25 pounds will show the same results while continuing to protect consumer health
- Potency caps protect consumers from irresponsible strong products that can lead to serious negative health
- It's basic consumer protection. These bills don't...
- It's basic consumer protection. These bills don't take cannabis away or weaken the market.
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy held a hearing on a broad set of cannabis and hemp bills, with the chairs opening by emphasizing unfinished work on equity, public health, safety, and market stability. The committee heard testimony on House Bill 146, which would create more efficient cannabis testing standards by increasing batch sizes, reducing or eliminating some environmental testing, standardizing lab reporting, and requiring annual scientific review and public data reporting. Industry witnesses, including a representative of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition, cultivators, and a testing lab owner, said current testing rules are overly burdensome, costly, and inconsistent, and argued the bill would lower compliance costs while preserving consumer safety. A testing lab witness also said some operators switch labs to obtain higher THC results or pass contaminated batches, and urged greater transparency and better sampling protocols.
A major portion of the hearing focused on intoxicating hemp and related bills that would bring hemp-derived intoxicating products under a stronger regulatory framework. Legislators and industry witnesses described products sold in gas stations, smoke shops, and convenience stores as often untested, not age-gated, and sometimes mislabeled or far above the federal hemp THC threshold. Testimony from attorneys and cannabis business leaders said states can regulate these products more strictly under the Farm Bill’s non-preemption language, and pointed to New Jersey and other states as possible models. Some witnesses and committee members stressed that any new rules should avoid harming non-intoxicating CBD businesses or lawful hemp farmers, while others argued that the products are effectively cannabis and should be regulated like cannabis for licensing, testing, age limits, and taxation.
The committee also heard extensive public-health testimony in support of bills S. 95, S. 96, S. 97 and their House counterparts H. 191, H. 192, and H. 193. Parents, advocates, and public health professionals urged stronger warning labels, THC potency caps, and improved data collection on cannabis-related harms, citing cannabis-induced psychosis, addiction, anxiety, and youth exposure to high-potency products. Several witnesses said Massachusetts has not done enough to track health outcomes or warn consumers, and referenced other jurisdictions such as Connecticut, Vermont, Colorado, Canada, and Quebec as examples of stronger limits or warnings. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and questions.