Committee approves bill limiting private consumer suits over prescription discount cards

Senate Bill 441, filed by Sen. Bart Hester, passed the House Judiciary Committee after an extended floor-level debate on retroactivity, standing and the scope of Arkansas’ consumer‑protection law.

Senator Bart Hester, state senator for District 33, told the committee the bill is aimed at stopping what he called “junk lawsuits” filed by out‑of‑state law firms against Arkansas companies that provide prescription discount cards. “If no one was harmed,” Hester said, “how do we continue to let people come to the state of Arkansas, sue our businesses, tie up our courtrooms, cost us money when no one was harmed?”

The bill would narrow the circumstances under which private parties may bring claims under Arkansas’ consumer‑protection statute, add a 30‑day written notice-and-cure requirement for some claims, and include retroactive language intended to affect pending litigation. Supporters argued the measure would protect local businesses from abusive litigation tied to discount‑card disclosures; detractors warned it would undermine consumer enforcement.

Attorney Bart Calhoun of McDaniel Wolf, representing the Burton and Annette Mullins Foundation, testified against the bill. Calhoun said the measure would “make the statute essentially useless” because it removes or limits key remedies, cuts attorney‑fee recovery for successful private plaintiffs, and limits the law to companies that receive fees from customers. He warned a cure provision and loss of fee awards would deter lawyers from taking small but meritorious consumer cases on behalf of vulnerable Arkansans.

Calhoun described the Mullins Foundation as an Arkansas‑based plaintiff in the pending litigation and said the foundation intends any recovery to benefit harmed consumers. He told the committee the foundation had donated $1 million to Arkansas Tech University and characterized the foundation’s work as local philanthropic activity.

Committee members asked multiple procedural and policy questions: whether the bill was retroactive (Hester confirmed it was), how standing is being addressed, whether adding a cure period would chill settlement discussions, and whether large corporations would avoid admitting fault during the cure window. Several lawmakers said they were undecided and urged members to read the pending complaint on CourtConnect for details.

After public testimony and committee questions, the committee voted to pass the bill on a roll call; the chair voted yes and announced the bill passed.

Supporters framed the measure as protecting Arkansans from costly litigation that does not benefit injured consumers, while opponents said it would curtail private enforcement of consumer protections and create procedural hurdles that could block meritorious claims from low‑income residents.

The bill now moves to the next legislative stage determined by the House leadership; committee members directed members to review the pending complaint and statutory text for further consideration in the chamber.