Relating to the revocation of certain licenses of persons found to have engaged in price gouging during a declared disaster.
Summary
HB 278 would create a new licensing consequence for certain price gouging violations during a declared disaster. The bill adds Section 17.4626 to the Business & Commerce Code and requires the attorney general or the court to notify relevant licensing authorities after the attorney general prevails, or a consumer prevails, in an action involving price gouging under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The notice must be sent within 30 days to the Texas Department of Agriculture or the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, depending on which agency regulates the person’s business activity.
Under the bill, if allowed by existing law, the licensing authority must revoke the person’s license through the normal revocation process after the first qualifying judgment, and must revoke any license the person holds after a second qualifying judgment. The bill defines “license” broadly to include licenses, certificates, registrations, permits, and other authorizations needed to engage in regulated business activity. The act would take effect on the 91st day after the legislative session ends.
Impact
HB 278 would amend Chapter 17 of the Business & Commerce Code by adding a new enforcement mechanism tied to disaster-related price gouging. It would not itself create a new price gouging offense, but would increase the collateral consequences of an existing violation by linking DTPA judgments to professional or business licensing action by state agencies. The bill would affect persons and businesses regulated by the Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, and could lead to suspension or revocation of licenses, certificates, registrations, or permits where authorized by existing law.
Sentiment
The available context shows little recorded debate, no committee transcript, and no vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure. Based on the bill’s caption and structure, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and disaster-response enforcement bill aimed at deterring exploitative pricing during emergencies. In the absence of recorded discussion, the overall sentiment can only be characterized as neutral-to-supportive in intent, with the bill presented as a stronger penalty for misconduct rather than a broad regulatory change.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the use of licensing revocation as an additional penalty for price gouging, especially because the bill applies after a first judgment and then escalates to revocation of any license after a second judgment. Critics could view this as a severe collateral sanction that may affect a person’s ability to continue operating a business, while supporters would likely argue it is a necessary deterrent during declared disasters. Another possible issue is that the bill relies on existing law to determine whether revocation is authorized, so the practical effect may vary depending on the licensing authority and the underlying regulatory scheme.