Tennessee House Bill HB1985

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/26
• Refer: 2/4/26
• Refer: 3/18/26
• Refer: 4/1/26
• Engrossed: 4/6/26
• Enrolled: 4/27/26
• Passed: 5/19/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 62, Chapter 32, relative to alarm systems contractors.

Summary

HB1985 amends Tennessee’s alarm systems contractor law to create a narrow exemption for certain managed services providers (MSPs). Under the bill, an MSP may provide direct sales, installation, or maintenance service for an IP camera connected to the MSP’s network without being treated as an alarm systems contractor, so long as those services account for less than 25% of the MSP’s gross annual revenue and the provider supplies employee-vetting proof acceptable to the commissioner. The exemption does not apply if the MSP offers monitoring services. The bill also defines “managed services provider” as a business entity that manages and maintains a customer’s information technology systems. In practical terms, the measure clarifies that some IT service companies that handle connected camera equipment are not swept into the alarm contractor licensing framework, provided they meet the bill’s limits and vetting requirements. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 62, Chapter 32, specifically Section 62-32-305, by adding a new exemption category for certain managed services providers. This narrows the reach of the alarm systems contractor licensing rules as applied to IP camera-related services, while preserving regulatory oversight through the revenue threshold, employee-vetting requirement, and exclusion for monitoring services. The change primarily affects MSPs, IT service firms, and businesses that install or maintain network-connected security cameras.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It advanced unanimously through the House Business and Utilities Subcommittee, the House Commerce Committee, and floor votes, with no recorded opposition in the available voting history. The lack of dissent suggests lawmakers generally viewed the measure as a technical clarification or targeted industry adjustment rather than a major policy dispute.

Contention

The main policy issue is the boundary between alarm systems contractors and managed services providers that work with IP cameras and other network-connected security equipment. Supporters likely favored clarifying that ordinary IT service providers should not be regulated as alarm contractors when camera work is only a small part of their business, while still requiring vetting and excluding monitoring services. No formal opposition is shown in the available record, so any contention appears limited to the scope of the exemption and whether the 25% revenue cap and commissioner-approved vetting standard are sufficient safeguards.