[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6309479,"mediaKeyId","2412363-36b6a25f94b8510c0fef7afef3fdf988","parentId",2412363,"title","Lawmakers weigh regulation of real‑estate 'wholesaling' after complaints about contracts and disclosures","audioSeconds",7813,"startMs",6578000,"endMs",14391000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2412363-36b6a25f94b8510c0fef7afef3fdf988&start=6578&end=14391","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2412363-36b6a25f94b8510c0fef7afef3fdf988/thumbnail_6578000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6309479/Connecticut/Lawmakers-weigh-regulation-of-realestate-wholesaling-after-complaints-about-contracts-and-disclosures","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6309479-750f39af43d53940e203518a2c258c7c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770537222&Signature=Sc3SE4-3rT-JVhUatgu2u5QgV6tr0uvx84tTE2xbbj4afJtuSolXgMLSzL~gWmON96CxSl6Q0pKTaiqxrhongRZcJsgGDm3yvNAdxLxWAP~FAkNStpPEEuN7TVaZKSdPQt8krXP~f94GLEbmT7h38uLaowqudTg17qvcEOY3pOLs6qIuoiX3QRERGl~vxiZkKAdMhesm8y-gz93qK50HWMfOIfruczGRkkMc98n0ZkQaOK6KcI0DAiIOWyND-4AiSNF7Jvb8CvoHlYmVRFSr6E1FLwwnf~jdwZsLhKY~oIzqP6VGo6B~N3lkTk1g9UKY22xCR4hLGVzfK96UialNeA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","CGA - General Law Committee","date","2025-02-26T00:00:00Z","article","Connecticut lawmakers heard public testimony on proposed rules for so‑called real‑estate wholesaling — a practice in which an intermediary signs a purchase contract with a seller and then assigns that contract to an end buyer. Rep. Joseph Zullo urged the General Law Committee to regulate wholesalers to protect sellers who may be vulnerable or poorly informed.

Representative Zullo and others described scenarios where sellers accepted below‑market offers while the wholesaler retained an assignment fee or flipped the contract to an end buyer. Zullo said wholesalers are often unlicensed while real‑estate agents, attorneys and lenders are subject to licensing and oversight.

Real‑estate industry witnesses — including small buyers and investors and a representative of the Connecticut Realtors — said they do not seek to ban wholesaling but want clearer disclosures, a required “notice to sellers” form, and enforcement tools to address bad actors. The Realtors proposed criminal penalties for failure to disclose intent to wholesale and an ability for sellers to cancel contracts prior to closing if they were misled.

Smaller investors who testified said wholesaling is an exit strategy for distressed sellers, a way to close quickly when a traditional listing would not be practical, and that assignment fees commonly average about $12,000. They warned that a 10‑day rescission right or a rigid 70‑day closing requirement would impair legitimate transactions and could harm sellers who need quick, certain closings.

Committee members asked for balanced drafting. Witnesses and lawmakers agreed on the need for a working group to craft common disclosure language, a clear definition of a wholesaler and consumer protections that do not unintentionally block legitimate buyers or transfers.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Wednesday 2.26.2025 General Law Public Hearing","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Zullo introduced legislation to license or regulate real‑estate wholesalers after public testimony described cases where vulnerable sellers signed contracts and later alleged unfair terms. Realtors and wholesaling businesses urged consumer disclosures and said licensing needs careful design to avoid unintended consequences.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature CT, Connecticut","taxId",77677,"location","Connecticut","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6309484,"Advocates and industry debate updates to Connecticut Data Privacy Act; key fixes proposed for data minimization and sensitive data",5727,9598000,15325000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2412363-36b6a25f94b8510c0fef7afef3fdf988&start=9598&end=15325","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2412363-36b6a25f94b8510c0fef7afef3fdf988/thumbnail_9598000.jpg","/articles/6309484/Connecticut/Advocates-and-industry-debate-updates-to-Connecticut-Data-Privacy-Act-key-fixes-proposed-for-data-minimization-and-sensitive-data","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6309484-90eb292fe8146253d23151d676b3399f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770537222&Signature=nTG3qbS6tkkHiVSRg0BjJCJy-cWNhmWZzcGGXR3m3lHntHSV763vmVjr-am4HWwqCaImJ1ekkiJITLPh-~OKLmiPLmamOMgujAksx-6gL016sfPR1wFOE9cM2i2Mr2oWtHIt1mlEta40NBkPNwFSncwT4B4jZjx04M3h-~CmgPz4gQqWybYdxTSOjbzCxDhHylaknwepn5pZ94~-XZk75YWattFhOYHIeiH5KP6Fcv~jd2ZvxVV4oqqhromhCnwJzw07x5anehtrsMDQ8VdgY6zxb1QesqftirLKD7XPf1YGIv3utQD5ePYFVxmRqnV7E5iAjCT8GGj01Ibrxe6KGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lawmakers and witnesses at a General Law Committee hearing considered Senate Bill 13 56, a set of proposed updates to the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA). The bill would tighten data‑minimization rules, update the definition of sensitive personal data and narrow certain entity‑level exemptions.

Privacy advocates including EPIC and Consumer Reports urged the committee to adopt a stricter “reasonably necessary” standard that would limit the collection of personal data to what is required to deliver a specific product or service. Katrina Fitzgerald of EPIC and Matt Schwartz of Consumer Reports pointed to Maryland’s 2024 law as a stronger model, recommending Connecticut adopt similar limits and consider a ban on the sale of sensitive categories of data.

Industry and business groups raised counterpoints. Representatives of the State Privacy and Security Coalition and other business coalitions warned that some proposed changes — notably expanded definitions of biometric or sensitive data and a lower threshold for covered entities — could create compliance burdens for small businesses and lead to uncertain rulemaking costs.

Speakers asked the committee to standardize the knowledge/age standard across the bill to avoid forcing platforms into invasive age‑verification techniques. The Center for Democracy and Technology and other civil‑society groups urged careful drafting to avoid incentives for risky age‑assurance technologies while still protecting children’s privacy.

Committee members asked for additional technical edits, and advocates offered to provide redlines. No vote was taken; the committee said it would continue technical discussions and asked the attorney general’s office and stakeholder groups to propose model language for data‑minimization, sensitive data bans and consistent knowledge standards.","A separate public hearing covered Senate Bill 1356, proposed changes to the Connecticut Data Privacy Act. Consumer advocates pushed to tighten data‑minimization and to ban sale of sensitive data; industry groups asked for narrower definitions and predictable enforcement regimes for small businesses.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6309489,"Commissioners, lawmakers and industry spar over proposed AI law as Connecticut weighs transparency and economic risks",6293,1945000,8238000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2412363-36b6a25f94b8510c0fef7afef3fdf988&start=1945&end=8238","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2412363-36b6a25f94b8510c0fef7afef3fdf988/thumbnail_1945000.jpg","/articles/6309489/Connecticut/Commissioners-lawmakers-and-industry-spar-over-proposed-AI-law-as-Connecticut-weighs-transparency-and-economic-risks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6309489-f46264212bcf1914f13f7611f08bcb29/orig.mp4?Expires=1770537223&Signature=cW~CWF0DynaQ9SOdLS8syC8JrAlXkqpcbvkkoiu2VoiseaVIBx1FZ6VKWwibEtQnOrCsbT1JunuDgz28xHSyAo0YNW-yVxhgkBQEitBxb1iGbjDzqO~U95Ubfspfl8FlaG56A3LilB8RB3aza8EamkqxkSY7rL5UBPuA0V1k9gEK2QPvdY3oNSTuZyX0SoJ884YSZb0afxKVfzrI41tj3tGnW0LLEoledT542wwr6ModNANifOfKumHJhw114BZ1zq1JeXS9krZHxffb0wxX8hMicqK6NiASITvMqmnm99~AZeuipM33mgdgSzRclLoXrVA8nVoYHdrZTHBNyh6elA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A committee hearing in Connecticut on Senate Bill 2 — a proposed state law that would set requirements for the development and deployment of artificial‑intelligence systems — drew contrasting views on whether the state should impose new regulatory obligations or limit action to workforce, data and outcome protections.

Supporters urged rules that require transparency, bias testing and post‑use explanations when AI affects housing, hiring, health care or insurance. Skeptics, including some state economic development officials and industry groups, said the bill's compliance costs and broad definitions of regulated systems risk deterring investment and innovation.

Commissioner Dan O'Keefe of the Department of Economic and Community Development told the committee he broadly supports the bill's economic development and workforce elements but urged removing or narrowing Sections 1–10, the measure's regulatory core. “I do believe we are in the early innings of a technology revolution,” O'Keefe said, and urged caution so Connecticut does not “become the only state in the region that resists” innovation.

Senator Maroney, sponsor and co‑chair of the committee, said the bill aims to protect consumers where AI makes consequential decisions while also promoting education and an AI sandbox for testing. Labor groups including the Connecticut AFL‑CIO asked for stronger worker protections and a role for unions in public‑sector AI uses. Technology trade groups, including TechNet, supported the bill's workforce proposals but urged narrowing definitions and protecting proprietary model information.

Several witnesses — from a coalition representing small AI firms to national policy institutes — debated the right timing and scope for regulation. Critics warned the state's approach could inadvertently favor large incumbents that can absorb compliance costs, while supporters said limited, state‑level action is needed now in the absence of federal rules.

The committee did not take a vote at the hearing. Members signaled further drafting and follow‑up meetings with stakeholders to refine definitions of \"consequential decisions\" and the thresholds that trigger transparency, testing and reporting obligations.","A long public hearing on Senate Bill 2, proposed Connecticut AI legislation, featured supporters calling for guardrails and workforce investment and critics warning of costly, early regulation that could chill local innovation. Testimony ranged from state commissioners to labor, business and technology trade groups.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers weigh regulation of real‑estate 'wholesaling' after complaints about contracts and disclosures

Advocates and industry debate updates to Connecticut Data Privacy Act; key fixes proposed for data minimization and sensitive data

Commissioners, lawmakers and industry spar over proposed AI law as Connecticut weighs transparency and economic risks