Virginia Consumer Protection Act; food labeling.
SB1376 amends the Virginia Consumer Protection Act’s list of prohibited practices, with the bill captioned as relating to food labeling. The measure updates and expands the statute governing fraudulent or deceptive acts in consumer transactions, and it applies both to the version of the law effective before July 1, 2025 and the version effective on and after that date. In addition to the existing consumer-protection prohibitions, the bill adds a new express violation for selling food that is required by the FDA to bear a nutrition label but does not meet federal nutrition-labeling requirements.
The bill also makes a broader set of consumer-facing conduct violations actionable under the Act. Among the added or revised provisions are restrictions involving hemp- and THC-containing products, kratom products, automatic-renewal and continuous-service disclosures, ignition interlock advertising, mold remediation services, and certain real-estate service agreements. It also continues to treat violations of numerous other Virginia statutes as per se violations of the Consumer Protection Act, thereby linking those subject areas to the Act’s enforcement remedies.
In practical terms, the bill strengthens enforcement against misleading labeling and sales practices by giving consumers and regulators another basis to challenge noncompliant food products and a wide range of other commercial practices. Businesses selling regulated consumer goods, food products, hemp/THC items, kratom, or services covered by the referenced statutes may face increased compliance obligations and potential liability under the Consumer Protection Act if they fail to meet the incorporated standards.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. It moved through the Senate and House with unanimous or near-unanimous votes at each stage, including 40-0 passage in the Senate, 95-0/97-0 in the House, and final Senate agreement to House amendments by 40-0. The absence of recorded opposition suggests broad bipartisan support for the consumer-protection and labeling provisions.
No major points of contention are reflected in the available record. The bill’s scope is broad, but the vote history indicates little disagreement over the added food-labeling requirement or the related consumer-protection updates. The main policy theme is tighter disclosure and product-safety enforcement rather than a contested shift in regulatory direction.
SB1376 amends Virginia Code § 59.1-200, the core prohibited-practices section of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, by adding a new express violation for FDA-regulated foods that fail to meet required nutrition-labeling standards and by revising the statute’s list of incorporated violations. The bill also updates the effective-date structure of the section, preserving the pre-July 1, 2025 version and establishing the post-July 1, 2025 version with the new subdivision 83 and related conforming changes. As a result, food sellers and other covered suppliers may be subject to Consumer Protection Act enforcement for noncompliant labeling and for the newly enumerated practices involving hemp, THC, kratom, automatic renewals, and other consumer transactions.
The bill’s legislative history shows overwhelming support and no recorded opposition. It passed the Senate 40-0, the House with very large margins, and the Senate agreed to House amendments unanimously. The pattern of votes suggests the measure was viewed as a routine consumer-protection and labeling update rather than a controversial policy change.
No significant contention is evident in the available materials. The bill’s broad expansion of actionable consumer-protection violations could affect food manufacturers, retailers, hemp and THC product sellers, kratom sellers, service providers, and other regulated businesses, but the recorded votes do not show organized resistance. If any policy concern existed, it would most likely have centered on the breadth of the Consumer Protection Act’s reach and the added compliance burden on affected industries, but that concern is not reflected in the vote record.