[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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",[32,76,88,100],{"_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",5984693,"mediaKeyId","5761316-a934f516412001b3b928f43168362aab","parentId",5761316,"title","Licensing, scanners and fake IDs: Utah panel weighs new ID‑verification rules for restaurants and bars","audioSeconds",3368,"startMs",4264000,"endMs",7632000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5761316-a934f516412001b3b928f43168362aab&start=4264&end=7632","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5761316-a934f516412001b3b928f43168362aab/thumbnail_4264000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5984693/Utah/Licensing-scanners-and-fake-IDs-Utah-panel-weighs-new-IDverification-rules-for-restaurants-and-bars","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5984693-ebf2670f7020e9435c87d7bfe8bd5bc9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770524178&Signature=eBDhqmQ~YyPyIPnASGil0LIwBBN9HPeYyJZpWZuxI0K8-bKNR7Z~H~Xw392ig-D2r~sVZpQxZuL599enSxtqu~c4Od52svT~w123c-RS07qxj2Bm3OW5l7SsyzvTQwokWkldke96YUmDODTbAAD1mNDygbp2gEn821yEOTmQieh8oTOJARJSjR5buDZ3jyqUL~-BiEZVcDCPon3vU~fxvQVRKEjKgoUSR62UCqUvD5P2~Ftsd6KeCetLz4rD6hVh0-~HLApz7gyKOqjYO4VyE-YiuypgMU5116bh~2yQG2gmCmKwCJyCDpCppCxXwVdiA6vj17ra-JUVXnCVtl4QbA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Utah Legislature","date","2025-09-16T00:00:00Z","article","Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services (DABS) officials, Department of Public Safety investigators and industry representatives briefed the interim Business, Labor and Commerce Committee on recent changes to Utah identification law, scanner technology, enforcement practice and concerns from restaurant operators.

Erica Evans, executive director of DABS, and Brian Swan, DABS deputy director for legal and regulatory affairs, reviewed the current statutory framework for acceptable identification (passports, U.S. driver’s licenses, military IDs with photo and date of birth, and state‑issued ID cards) and explained new requirements enacted last session that affect how on‑premise licensees (bars, taverns and restaurants) verify patrons.

Under current statute, establishments must electronically verify identification for people who ‘‘appear to be 35 years of age or younger.’’ The recent legislation expands verification duties: on‑premise licensees now must verify an individual’s identification with a scanning device regardless of physical appearance when a person orders alcohol, and DABS must ensure scanning devices can capture each state’s hidden security features. The law also directs the driver‑license division to create an ‘‘interdicted person’’ identification card indicating that an individual is prohibited from purchasing alcohol; DABS will produce training for licensees on recognizing that status.

DABS officials noted statutory limits on scanner data: scanning devices may retain only the cardholder’s name, age, identification number, date of birth, gender, and status/expiration; retained data may be kept for seven days under statute and rule. State liquor‑store employees must check IDs 100% of the time and do not retain scanned data; many private retailers are required to use scanning devices but retention practices differ across locations.

Department of Public Safety captains Tanner Jensen and Chamberlain Neff described enforcement and a recent criminal investigation into a Salt Lake City establishment (the Sugar House Pub). After complaints and covert visits, investigators observed repeated failures to verify IDs and over‑service to patrons who appeared under 21, and agents recovered roughly 50 abandoned fraudulent IDs. The investigators said scanner records can aid investigations but noted that law enforcement does not have direct live access to scanner databases: DPS requests preserved records from licensees through legal process, and the seven‑day retention window can limit investigators’ options when complaints arrive later.

Industry representatives — including the Salt Lake Area Restaurant Association’s Michelle Cregliano and Utah Restaurant Association President Melva Sine — told the committee restaurants face operational challenges complying with a universal scanning requirement. They described typical restaurant floor plans, where servers move among many tables and a single scanner at a fixed bar location can be impractical; purchasing individual handheld scanners for every server could cost thousands of dollars per device and be cost‑prohibitive for smaller operators. The restaurant representatives asked the legislature to consider a delay in implementation or to identify practical alternatives and safe harbors for operators who have taken reasonable steps to verify age and interdicted status.

Industry speakers and DABS staff also raised cross‑cutting issues: improved scanner technology can read passports and mobile IDs, but not all scanners and venues are configured the same; fake IDs have become more sophisticated (holograms and replicated security features), and many are purchased online; and international travelers and driver‑privilege cards present additional practical questions because some acceptable documents are not currently recognized for verification under Utah law.

DABS said training and a rule‑making process are forthcoming to specify scanner standards and operational guidance. Restaurant associations asked for more time and technical work so operators can adopt compliant systems without bearing disproportionate cost or enforcement risk.

Why it matters: The statutory changes expand verification duties for all on‑premise alcohol servers and impose technical standards on scanning devices while preserving strict privacy limits and a short retention period for scanned data. The policy intersects hospitality business costs, law enforcement investigations and efforts to curb sales to minors and to individuals prohibited from purchasing alcohol.

What’s next: DABS will pursue rule changes to implement scanner standards and issue training materials for licensees and retailers. Industry representatives requested legislative engagement on possible implementation delays, safe harbors, or funding/technical assistance to help smaller operators adapt.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified from the committee meeting transcript and appeared during the DABS presentation, DPS enforcement briefing and public comment.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Business and Labor Interim Committee - September 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services and Department of Public Safety officials updated the interim Business, Labor and Commerce Committee on new ID‑verification rules, scanner capabilities, enforcement experiences and industry concerns after recent changes in state law.","taxTitle","2025 Utah Legislature, Utah Legislature, Utah Legislative Branch, Utah","taxId",78171,"location","Utah","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},5984698,"Utah’s Office of AI Policy outlines sandbox activity, mental‑health and youth risks, and national coordination",2947,1324000,4271000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5761316-a934f516412001b3b928f43168362aab&start=1324&end=4271","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5761316-a934f516412001b3b928f43168362aab/thumbnail_1324000.jpg","/articles/5984698/Utah/Utahs-Office-of-AI-Policy-outlines-sandbox-activity-mentalhealth-and-youth-risks-and-national-coordination","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5984698-d89c46ec905d3dd219bd74c61408c72d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770524178&Signature=HmJVg0QGu-fXiW7-694Iu1lFEm5QnYvopQZaBvfdUphpZyexfC3gR4kvCCx6WomI9o5KLbRjUZwje8bo2e-W~TgnAOMpD3zjlbF7J2Vo0es1bhxfngciz7jN7pGHbdz2dFqoEp2ape~TJeeQV6dZCDtpS2YyhvdfkfhKTlhY7O7LOmw0kxVzPEB1YGEUN234dAX13pRZs6nX6f6mk3hi~p3Mxw6kw8-bGY8LztRdR~94-p1eaJQzBZ2VK~1ABXc4ddE88VW0euB9EvfYm2RITA2Mq9OWAqi5zW2BRLFJxUoFrXDErAPJOrNDqE6oyYmEnLHbHe77E39~5lHY3-7FEQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The interim Business, Labor and Commerce Committee received the 2025 annual report for the Office of AI Policy from Director Zach Boyd, who described three office programs — a regulatory mitigation (sandbox) program, a learning laboratory for deep policy studies, and continuous observation of AI‑related risks — and discussed recent activities and future bills.

‘‘We have three tasks that you guys have given us,’’ Boyd said. ‘‘First is to balance protection of the public with fostering of innovation.’’ Boyd told the committee the office aims to provide temporary regulatory relief for carefully scoped AI pilots, to gather outcome data, and to recommend permanent legal changes when practices and best practices become clear.

Boyd said the AI sandbox functions similarly to the GOEO sandbox: companies apply and the office crafts a temporary, written agreement that defines testing conditions, required data collection and reporting. He said most initial inquiries do not require mitigation, but that applications have accelerated: ‘‘in the last 3 or 4 months, things have really had an uptick. We're getting about one application a week now from companies in all kinds of sectors,’’ Boyd said.

Examples presented to the committee included a public‑health dentistry pilot in which computer‑vision models help hygienists identify a narrowly defined set of common, low‑risk conditions (periodontal disease) from X‑rays and visual inspection, enabling a lower‑cost service model for homeless and low‑income populations. Boyd said academic literature and the dental board supported a narrow pilot that included outcome reporting; early results, he said, ‘‘are indeed very good.’’

Boyd also described engagement with a mental‑health chatbot company (referred to in the presentation as Eliza Chat). The office negotiated governance measures rather than a statutory waiver and agreed in one case to allow a 30‑day cure period for the company to fix issues if the bot exceeded its intended boundaries. Boyd said that approach gives startups a predictable path to test responsibly.

The learning laboratory has studied AI in mental health and recommended a mix of consumer protections, a safe harbor to encourage compliant firms to enter the market, and education for clinicians. The legislature adopted the office’s mental‑health chatbot recommendations in a bill last session, Boyd said, and he told the committee his office has begun new studies on deepfakes and ‘‘AI companions’’ (personal AI chatbots used for social or intimate interaction). Boyd said early evidence suggests a significant share of teens and emerging adults — ‘‘somewhere between a fifth and a third’’ — have used companion‑style AI tools, and he described harms that range from worsening social isolation to rare tragic outcomes in individual cases.

Director Boyd and Executive Director Margaret Busse of the Department of Commerce also described federal coordination. Busse said an early congressional draft would have imposed a state moratorium on AI regulation or conditioned federal grant money on states not regulating AI; state officials and lawmakers successfully opposed that language. Busse said the administration’s AI action plan now contemplates a federal sandbox to coordinate with state sandboxes, and Boyd said coordination would allow firms to work concurrently with state and federal regulators.

Committee members asked about agency and municipal limits; Boyd and Busse clarified the office can only affect state statutes and administrative rules, not federal law or municipal ordinances. Members also raised liability, scope‑of‑practice and government use of AI in state agencies. Boyd said liability and contracts are unresolved industry concerns and that some hospitals are worried vendor contracts place AI liability on providers even after hospital‑level procurement decisions.

On youth and consumer harms, Boyd described the industry dynamics that can incentivize high engagement. ‘‘The same companies to some degree... are all building these kinds of AI companions,’’ said Busse. The office indicated it plans to propose legislation informed by the learning lab’s studies on deepfakes and companion apps.

Why it matters: The Office of AI Policy is both a regulator and a convenor: it negotiates temporary relief for pilots, studies systemic risks through its learning lab, and advises the legislature on bills. The office’s mental health recommendations were already adopted; the committee heard that deepfake and companion‑app bills are under development.

What’s next: Expect more committee briefings and potential bill files in the next session addressing deepfakes, companion apps, consumer privacy and coordination of state and federal sandboxes.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified from the committee meeting transcript and appeared during the Office of AI Policy presentation and Q&A.","The interim Business, Labor and Commerce Committee received the 2025 annual report for the Office of AI Policy from Director Zach Boyd, who described three programs — regulatory mitigation, a learning laboratory, and continuous observation — and outlined recent pilots, studies and federal coordination.",{"_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},5984703,"Committee approves OPLER plan to continue health‑care licensure reviews next year",253,1086000,1339000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5761316-a934f516412001b3b928f43168362aab&start=1086&end=1339","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5761316-a934f516412001b3b928f43168362aab/thumbnail_1086000.jpg","/articles/5984703/Utah/Committee-approves-OPLER-plan-to-continue-healthcare-licensure-reviews-next-year","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5984703-08e6391355ee81ea376bf76c56c573b7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770524178&Signature=Ep1kUC2kO1AjnIN9d1AKwGy9rNTfWA5RLNzLYMcDY6zC8KOtwj1WXlz2gTeIc14lC~EhRgwv0qeySRoUdBrpwbVAI9wh0vmdX901kqmvv0CsEzhQyBjT61~hfWUSXzRkKNOsFAaB-S3WHpUl4Mci05jPhcRaUx4HD6gP1X0F8qpk9Md~F13pDIXz97scC9vyD6ZMq6OPU46q~P83xy9r8kCZGPwBMpBqVBsBz-uyOKeJM1iQT0HmHfDfdRK58JnG-LaOWJ0j9YEwgo3b6U5mFSB~xGDgVckl82cbe4CASe8QvbJ4V4aNDAejJo05xrz4jeKvJ9zdrn7dOC5LFAGz~Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The interim Business, Labor and Commerce Committee voted to accept the Office of Professional Licensure Review’s (OPLER) proposed list of regulated occupations for its 2026 periodic review and heard a status report about the office’s expanded duties.

Jeff Shumway, director of OPLER within the Utah Department of Commerce, told the committee the office intends to continue next year’s periodic review of health‑care occupations — a set the office started in 2025 — and plans to include physicians, dentists, pharmacists and other allied health professions.

‘‘Our proposal is to continue that next year ... the major occupations that we'll be looking at are physicians, dentists, pharmacists,’’ Shumway said. He added the office plans to review numerous other health occupations such as radiologic technicians and dieticians.

Shumway also reported on two new duties created by last year’s HB 474. First, the office now conducts systematic administrative rule reviews as part of the periodic review. Second, the office must take public input where members of the public claim an occupational statute or rule is ineffective or inefficient; OPLER has had that public‑input mechanism in operation since late May.

The committee had no clarifying questions beyond staff confirmation that the vote covered the list of occupations only and not additional topics. Ronald Randall, policy analyst with Legislative Research and General Counsel, confirmed the committee was voting only to approve the proposed list of periodic reviews.

A committee member moved to approve the list; the committee voted ‘‘aye’’ and the chair announced the proposal ‘‘passes unanimously.’’ The transcript records the committee’s unanimous approval but does not include a roll call in the hearing record.

Why it matters: OPLER’s periodic review process is the primary mechanism the legislature uses to examine whether occupational regulations remain necessary and whether they impose undue burdens on licensed professionals. The continuation of a health‑care focus signals sustained legislative attention to scope‑of‑practice and regulatory barriers in medical professions.

What’s next: OPLER will include systematic rule‑review sections in its reports this year and continue outreach on public complaints about licensing statutes and rules.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified from the committee meeting transcript and appeared during the OPLER presentation and committee vote.","The interim committee accepted the Office of Professional Licensure Review’s proposed list for its 2026 periodic review, including a continuation of health‑care occupation reviews and new duties to review administrative rules and accept public input on ineffective or inefficient occupational regulations under HB 474.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5984708,"Utah officials tout regulatory sandbox successes, pivot to targeted industry outreach",1000,80000,1080000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5761316-a934f516412001b3b928f43168362aab&start=80&end=1080","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5761316-a934f516412001b3b928f43168362aab/thumbnail_80000.jpg","/articles/5984708/Utah/Utah-officials-tout-regulatory-sandbox-successes-pivot-to-targeted-industry-outreach","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5984708-4236d3f1a5dd6652a455f600eaea948c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770524178&Signature=QIeOUaGFJeG7lIqBHVk8wOwe39MWxT0tYgou1mUwvGuGtCuPiYu1EyA1MYvyT~BS0B6v27-eL8f176TufQjVp8Ho9sgp1LsV~oDkJ4yEJxrkbCuO8rjRt15-4LHqtEgiCHHyKZvaOWlu9isLBZV7J0XlAIDy6E3SperELc4GzdQZJnaQlYeNOMJH00GR8NiV1Aocmih3fpvmhpIJwEVNfkAHcgB2WMf7nHD5e5gixdrfW1fONHXCer2NaXFZ2NHTCh8QSWLABX0d2GsmeluHVuTpVoYjBI3soxje6cPHRJJ5WgpJ8Gq8pwpD9m-gqYdbclxlq-Ockv8vw7hpX0SoLg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The interim Business, Labor and Commerce Committee heard an update on Utah’s regulatory “sandbox” from former Representative Jefferson Moss and Dana Sharara on the state’s approach to waiving or easing state regulatory requirements for emerging businesses.

The sandbox, created by legislation first passed in February 2021 (HP 217) to form the Office of Regulatory Relief, allows businesses to apply for temporary waivers of state statutes or administrative rules so regulators and companies can test innovations without immediately changing permanent law. ‘‘When we did the sandbox a few years ago ... it was, I think, the first in the nation to do something like this,’’ said Jefferson Moss, executive director of the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity.

Committee members were told the program has produced two businesses that graduated from the sandbox, two businesses currently under contract and more than 20 firms assisted through pre-application or clarification work. Dana Sharara, director of the Office of Regulatory Relief, said most early contacts are resolved without a formal waiver because agencies and companies can clarify regulatory language or address the issue through an administrative rule rather than a statutory change.

Sharara walked members through the statutory history: HP 217 (02/2021) created the Office of Regulatory Relief and the industry‑agnostic sandbox; HB 243 (02/2022) merged specialty sandboxes and added open‑meeting transparency requirements after concerns about early confidentiality; subsequent 2024 amendments expanded the advisory board (to nine members plus three rotating subject‑matter members) and adjusted the denial process so a denial must come from an executive director within the relevant regulatory agency.

Sharara described procedural changes the office has adopted: prescreening conversations with agencies before formally submitting applications to avoid surprising regulators; deeper review of why a law exists to respect legislative intent; and a new industry regulatory review process that requires a deep dive into at least two industries per year (the office reviewed life sciences and fintech in the most recent year). Sharara said those industry reviews will be included in the office’s annual report due October 1.

Moss and Sharara said the program is moving from a reactive model—waiting for applications—to a more targeted outreach approach. ‘‘We’re now ... going to be more targeted with our approach for the regulatory reviews,’’ Sharara said, describing the shift as moving from “bait fishing” to something more deliberate. Moss said GOEO plans to promote the sandbox as an economic development tool to attract out‑of‑state firms and to engage earlier with innovators so the agency can help identify regulatory hurdles before companies scale.

Committee members asked about startup survivorship and the balance of risk. Moss said sandbox decisions focus on whether the underlying technology or use case is new and whether offering temporary relief poses risks to health, safety or welfare, rather than the firm’s stage of growth. Representative Shallenberg asked how to balance startup failure rates with helping businesses obtain financing; Moss replied the office evaluates the novelty of the application and its public‑safety implications rather than firm longevity.

Members also asked about energy and microgrid opportunities. Moss and committee members discussed microgrids’ need to connect to utilities such as Rocky Mountain Power and the cost‑allocation problems that arise when upgrades benefit many ratepayers. Representative Ballard said he would discuss offline how the state could play an investor role that allows upgrades without making a single microgrid developer pay for system improvements.

The presenters described federal coordination as well: the office now has a point of contact in the Small Business Administration advocacy office and said it will work with federal delegation members when complaints or barriers are clearly within federal jurisdiction. Sharara clarified that the sandbox can waive only state statutes or administrative rules; it cannot change federal regulation or municipal ordinances.

The presenters asked the committee for feedback and said GOEO plans to return in the November interim with a broader strategic plan that will show how the sandbox fits into GOEO priorities. ‘‘We are putting together a strategic plan for GOEO ... This would be one of those,’’ Sharara said.

Why it matters: Utah’s regulatory sandbox is being positioned as both a testing ground for emergent technologies and a marketing tool to attract companies. The statutory changes since 2021 emphasize transparency, targeted expertise for complex applications and stronger agency involvement.

What’s next: GOEO will publish an annual report by Oct. 1 and return to the committee during the November interim with a strategic plan and additional recommendations for targeted industry reviews.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified from the committee meeting transcript and appeared during the sandbox update presentation and questioning.","State economic and regulatory officials updated the interim Business, Labor and Commerce Committee on Utah’s industry-agnostic regulatory sandbox, citing two graduated businesses, expanded transparency requirements and a shift toward proactively pursuing reviews of emerging sectors such as energy, aerospace and AI.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Licensing, scanners and fake IDs: Utah panel weighs new ID‑verification rules for restaurants and bars

Utah’s Office of AI Policy outlines sandbox activity, mental‑health and youth risks, and national coordination

Committee approves OPLER plan to continue health‑care licensure reviews next year

Utah officials tout regulatory sandbox successes, pivot to targeted industry outreach