Tennessee House Bill HB0550

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/25
• Refer: 2/5/25
• Refer: 3/19/25
• Refer: 3/26/25
• Engrossed: 4/1/25
• Enrolled: 4/17/25
• Passed: 5/2/25
• Chaptered: 5/8/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 27; Title 8, Chapter 34; Title 8, Chapter 35; Title 8, Chapter 36 and Title 8, Chapter 37, relative to retirement planning.

Summary

HB0550, the “Fairness in Benefits Act,” amends Tennessee retirement-related statutes to require employers participating in the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System to permit private entities to distribute information and educational materials about their alternative retirement plans and life contracts to employees on the employer’s premises. The access must occur outside employees’ official duty hours and through direct contact with the private entity’s representatives. The bill also limits the kinds of private offerings that may be promoted under this access rule: the alternative retirement plan must be the functional equivalent of a qualified retirement plan, including plans comparable to those authorized under sections 401(a), 401(k), 403(a), 403(b), 408(k), 408(p), or 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. The act took effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill affects Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 8, Chapters 27, 34, 35, 36, and 37 by creating a new provision governing employer access for private retirement-plan vendors at public or participating employers tied to the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System. It does not change benefit formulas or retirement eligibility directly, but it does alter the rules for workplace solicitation and informational access by private providers of retirement products and life contracts, potentially affecting employees, employers, and competing financial services firms.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support and little visible opposition. It advanced through subcommittee and committee unanimously and passed floor votes overwhelmingly, including consent-calendar passage and later concurrence in a Senate amendment. The voting history suggests the measure was viewed as a relatively noncontroversial retirement-planning access bill.

Contention

No committee transcript was provided, and the recorded votes show no dissent, so there is no documented substantive opposition in the available materials. The main policy issue implicit in the bill is whether employers in the state retirement system should be required to allow private vendors on-site access to employees for retirement-plan marketing, balanced against concerns about workplace solicitation, vendor competition, and ensuring that only comparable qualified-plan alternatives are promoted.