LIABILITY-FREE) PRODUCTS ACT (Prohibits mandating indemnified products to consumers in certain circumstances.
Summary
S0264 creates a new chapter in Rhode Island commercial law called the “Consumer Protection from Indemnified (Liability-Free) Products Act.” The bill would prohibit government agencies, employers, private businesses, and educational institutions from mandating or coercing consumers to accept “indemnified” or liability-free products when refusal could lead to loss of employment, loss of an employment opportunity or promotion, loss of access to public or private education, or harassment. It also gives consumers and their guardians the right to opt out in writing without having to provide a reason.
The bill defines a range of terms broadly, including consumer, employer, educational institution, harassment, and opt out, and it directs the Rhode Island consumer protection unit in the attorney general’s office to pursue cases where a person is harmed or threatened with harm for declining a recommended indemnified product. It further declares that any contract term waiving these rights is void as against public policy. The act would take effect immediately upon passage.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new consumer-protection chapter to Title 6 of the Rhode Island General Laws and create enforceable rights against coercion tied to acceptance of indemnified products. It would expose employers, government agencies, and educational institutions to enforcement actions and potential remedies when they condition employment, advancement, or educational access on acceptance of such products. It also limits the ability of contracts or agreements to waive these protections, making those waivers unenforceable as a matter of public policy.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so there is no documented public debate to measure support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure is framed as a consumer-protection and anti-coercion bill, suggesting an intent to protect individual choice and prevent retaliation for refusal. The absence of transcripts or votes means the overall sentiment in the legislative process cannot be determined from the available record.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s broad restriction on when employers, government agencies, and schools may recommend or require indemnified products, especially where refusal could affect employment or educational opportunities. Another likely issue is the breadth of the definitions and enforcement provisions, including the attorney general’s consumer protection unit being directed to pursue cases and the voiding of contract waivers as contrary to public policy. Because no committee discussion or votes are available, specific objections or supporters cannot be identified from the record provided.