Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulatory Sandbox topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears proponents urge regulatory sandbox in Ohio for new technologies
Summary
Supporters including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and a policy group testified in favor of House Bill 176, which would create a statewide regulatory sandbox for novel products and services; lawmakers questioned details such as the five‑year testing window and program oversight.
The House Government Oversight Committee received proponent testimony on House Bill 176 on Wednesday, a proposal to create a regulatory "sandbox" program allowing selected businesses to test novel products and services under limited regulatory relief.
Tony Long, general counsel and director of energy and environmental policy at the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, told the committee the bill would expand a prior fintech-focused sandbox (Senate Bill 249) to a broader set of products and services. "This legislation would create a regulatory sandbox program for novel products and services in Ohio," Long said, adding that regulators could use results from tests to decide whether existing rules should be modified.
The bill would create a regulatory relief office under the state’s Common Sense Initiative to coordinate with agencies and identify statutory or administrative requirements that could be waived for participants. "Regulators can then determine if old regulation should be removed, modified, or if new protections need to be adopted," Long said, and he gave examples from other states including mobile towing dispatch apps, title insurance and digital currency pilots.
Representatives pressed witnesses on program details. Representative Sims asked why the bill allows up to five years for a regulatory hiatus; Long said the Senate fintech sandbox used a shorter period and the five‑year window could be revisited. Vice Chair Ferguson asked whether Ohio should adopt features used by other states to remain competitive; Hannah Cubbins of AFP said she and her organization were open to adjustments and emphasized the bill’s consumer‑protection provisions and oversight features.
Supporters argued the sandbox would let the state test new uses of artificial intelligence, digital currency, advanced manufacturing and other innovations in a controlled environment. "A regulatory sandbox is a legal classification which creates a space where participating businesses will not be subject to burdensome regulations," Hannah Cubbins testified, saying the bill includes "guidelines of the program, worker keeping requirements, and requiring certain disclosures to consumers."
No committee vote was taken on HB 176; the committee concluded the second hearing and received written testimony from the NFIB for the record. Proponents said they are available to work with the committee on technical changes, including the length of the pilot period and process details.
What’s next: Additional hearings or amendments could be scheduled; sponsors and proponents indicated willingness to refine time limits and program details before a committee vote.
