Tennessee House Bill HB2301

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/5/26
• Refer: 3/25/26
• Refer: 4/1/26
• Refer: 4/15/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39; Title 40 and Title 57, relative to adulterated products.

Summary

HB2301 creates a new criminal offense for adulterating food, beverages, or pharmaceutical products with the intent to cause involuntary intoxication, bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or death. The bill applies to products manufactured, marketed, grown, or produced for human consumption, as well as pharmaceuticals used to diagnose or treat disease or medical conditions. It sets felony penalties based on the intended harm: Class D for involuntary intoxication, Class C for bodily injury, and Class B for serious bodily injury or death. The bill also adds a new alcohol-safety requirement for licensed premises that serve intoxicating beverages. Licensees must maintain a commission-approved drink drug testing device that is readily available to customers who suspect a beverage has been spiked, laced, or contaminated. The bill requires prominent notice to customers, allows the device to be provided free or at cost, limits liability for defective or inaccurate test results, and directs the commission and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation to verify that approved devices test for the required substances and may cover additional substances if needed.

Impact

HB2301 would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 39, 40, and 57 by expanding criminal law on adulteration and adding regulatory obligations for alcohol licensees. In Title 39, it broadens and clarifies the offense of adulterating consumable products with harmful intent and establishes felony classifications tied to the intended injury. In Title 57, it imposes a new compliance requirement on retailers and other licensed sellers of intoxicating beverages to keep drink drug testing devices available and to post notice of that availability, while also creating a liability shield for test inaccuracies.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong, unanimous support at each committee stage, with no recorded opposition in the votes provided. That suggests the bill was viewed favorably as a public-safety measure aimed at preventing drink spiking, protecting consumers, and strengthening penalties for intentional contamination of food, beverages, and pharmaceuticals. No committee transcript is available, so the broader discussion record is limited, but the procedural history indicates broad bipartisan agreement.

Contention

The main policy issues likely concern the practical burden on alcohol licensees and the reliability of drink drug testing devices. The bill requires businesses to maintain approved devices, keep them available on request, and post notices, which could raise compliance and cost concerns for retailers, bars, and other licensed premises. Another possible point of contention is the standard for approved devices and the accuracy requirements, since the bill directs state agencies to ensure the devices test for specified substances and allows expansion to additional substances. The liability protection for false positives and false negatives also suggests an effort to address concerns from licensees and device manufacturers.