AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 12; Title 45; Title 46; Title 47; Title 48; Title 62; Title 65 and Title 66, relative to consumer protection.
SB2103 is a very short consumer protection bill that makes a single statutory change: it deletes subsection (d) of Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-18-126. The bill does not add new consumer protections or create a new regulatory program; instead, it removes an existing subsection from the state’s consumer protection laws. Because the bill text does not include the contents of the deleted subsection, the precise substantive effect cannot be determined from the text alone, but the measure clearly targets an existing provision within Tennessee’s consumer protection chapter.
The bill amends Tennessee law in Title 47, which governs commerce and trade, and is framed broadly as an act affecting multiple titles, though the only operative change is in Title 47. It takes effect immediately upon becoming law, with the stated public welfare justification. In practical terms, the bill would alter the rights, duties, or enforcement framework associated with § 47-18-126 by removing subsection (d), potentially affecting consumers, businesses, and any state enforcement or private-right-of-action provisions tied to that subsection.
SB2103 would directly modify Tennessee’s consumer protection statute by striking subsection (d) from Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-18-126. This means the legal effect of that subsection would be eliminated, and any obligations, exceptions, remedies, or procedural rules contained in it would no longer apply. The bill does not appear to create new duties or expand enforcement authority elsewhere in the code; its impact is limited to repeal-by-deletion of an existing provision within the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act framework.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears technical and narrowly focused rather than ideologically charged. The immediate-effective-date language suggests the sponsor viewed the change as urgent or necessary for public welfare, but the available record does not show whether that characterization was contested.
The main point of contention, if any, would likely center on the substance of the deleted subsection (d) of § 47-18-126, since the bill text does not explain what that subsection did. Without the underlying language, it is not possible to identify which stakeholders would be helped or harmed, but potential affected parties could include consumers, businesses, and enforcement agencies depending on whether the deleted provision imposed restrictions, created exemptions, or established remedies. Because no discussion or vote history is available, no specific opposing arguments can be attributed to any person or group.