Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulatory Sandbox topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee Hears Support for Broader Regulatory Sandbox; Questions on Time Limits
Summary
Supporters told the committee House Bill 176 would expand Ohio’s regulatory sandbox beyond fintech to allow supervised testing of novel products and services; witnesses cited examples from other states and asked the committee to consider program details including a five-year testing window.
Tony Long, general counsel and director of energy and environmental policy at the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, testified the bill "would create a regulatory sandbox program for novel products and services in Ohio" and said 14 states already have some form of sandbox. He described examples used in other states: a Utah towing-dispatch app, title insurance and health-care testing in Utah, and art-fraud detection and blockchain work in Arizona.
Hannah Cubbins of AFP (Americans for Prosperity) also testified in support and described a sandbox as "a legal classification which creates a space where participating businesses will not be subject to burdensome regulations." She said the bill includes consumer protections, disclosure requirements and a regulatory relief office under the state’s Common Sense Initiative to work with agencies and firms.
Why it matters: supporters told the committee a broader sandbox would let regulators and businesses test emerging technologies — from digital currency to AI and advanced manufacturing — in a controlled environment and decide whether existing rules should be changed before a wider rollout.
Committee members asked technical and policy questions. Representative Sims asked why the draft bill allows up to a five-year regulatory hiatus for participants; witnesses said the Senate fintech sandbox used a shorter period and the five-year period in the House draft "is something that could be looked at." Vice Chair Ferguson asked whether Ohio should tighten or relax procedural limits to remain competitive; witnesses deferred to bill sponsors and implementation details but expressed openness to changes.
No committee vote on House Bill 176 was recorded at the hearing. Witnesses asked the committee to move the bill forward and to work on implementation details, including time limits and agency oversight.
