Senate Judiciary advances pricing-transparency bill; removes private right of action, HB 1090 passes 4-3

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 4 to 3 to advance House Bill 1090, a consumer-pricing transparency measure, after adopting and rejecting a series of amendments during a committee hearing. The action sends the bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

The bill aims to require clearer disclosure of total prices and to create limited safe harbors for businesses that meet specified conditions. Committee debate focused on enforcement (state attorney general authority versus private lawsuits), whether federal regulatory regimes should limit state enforcement, and carve-outs for one-time or industry-specific fees.

Committee discussion and amendments: committee members debated and adopted Amendment L18, offered by Senator Carson, which removes a private right of action and leaves enforcement to state remedies (including fines and authority for the attorney general). Senator Weisman opposed removing the private cause of action, saying, “we do not consider this a friendly amendment, and I'm asking for a no vote,” and argued that private enforcement protects residents in less-populated areas who might not draw the attorney general’s attention. The transcript records L18 as adopted on a 4-3 vote.

Senator Carson offered Amendment L19 to change language in the bill from being “compliant with” certain federal statutes to being “subject to” those statutes, which he described as clarifying that entities regulated by federal financial statutes should report to federal regulators. Senator Weisman opposed the change, saying the bill needs entities to be actually compliant with federal law rather than merely subject to it: “Compliant with means you're under this federal law and you're actually following it,” he said. L19 failed on a roll call vote, 2-5.

Senator Carson also proposed Amendment L20 to carve out authorization for clearly disclosed one-time fees (for example, administrative or sign-up fees) so those would not be treated as deceptive if disclosed up front. Senator Weisman opposed L20 on grounds that the language was too broad and could undercut the bill’s transparency goal; L20 failed on a roll call vote (vote recorded as 2-5).

Sponsor-led technical amendments labeled L22 and L23 were presented and discussed earlier in the hearing. Committee staff and the sponsor described L22 as adding a safe-harbor provision that points to certain parts of the Code of Federal Regulations governing cable and satellite carriers, and L23 as tailored language addressing delivery network companies (examples cited: DoorDash, Instacart, Uber Eats). The sponsor told the committee those amendments were the result of negotiations with stakeholders and would provide limited exceptions where federal regulatory frameworks already apply and where the attorney general’s rulemaking could produce an alternative compliance path.

Closing remarks and final vote: Senator Cutter, speaking for the sponsors, said the bill and negotiated amendments strike a balance between business concerns and consumer protections, adding that the bill ‘‘providing additional layer of transparency and the ability for [constituents] to plan accordingly and compare and know what they're getting into right up front.’’ Senator Weisman summarized the bill’s consumer-protection purpose and historical grounding in federal consumer-protection law, saying it is intended to discourage deceptive pricing and promote transparent advertising.

The committee recorded a final vote of 4 to 3 to advance House Bill 1090 as amended to the Committee of the Whole.

Votes at a glance: - Amendment L18 (remove private right of action; enforcement limited to AG/fines): adopted, 4–3. - Amendment L19 (change “compliant with” to “subject to” specified federal statutes): failed, 2–5. - Amendment L20 (carve-out for clearly disclosed one‑time fees): failed, 2–5. - House Bill 1090 (as amended): advanced to Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation, 4–3.

What the changes mean: The committee adopted the enforcement limitation in L18, meaning the bill as advanced does not include a private right of action but retains state enforcement tools and potential fines. The committee rejected attempts to (1) narrowly defer enforcement to federal regulators (L19) and (2) create a broad, economy-wide exemption for one-time fees (L20). Sponsor statements and the amendments L22/L23 preserve targeted safe harbors for sectors with existing federal frameworks and offer the attorney general a potential regulatory rulemaking pathway for alternative compliance.

Next steps: With committee approval, HB 1090 moves to the Committee of the Whole for consideration by the full Senate chamber. The transcript does not record a date for further floor action.