Attorney general presents bill to bar deceptive manipulation of prices for essential goods; business groups urge caution

Attorney General Aaron Ford and Chief Deputy Attorney General Mark Krueger presented Assembly Bill 44 to the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor on May 13. The bill would prohibit manipulation of the price of “essential goods or services” in Nevada when accomplished through fraudulent or deceptive means, and it would authorize the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Bureau to investigate and pursue enforcement.

Ford said the measure targets fraudulent and deceptive practices that artificially inflate prices of necessities and is not intended to police ordinary market responses to supply and demand. "This bill does not prohibit companies from setting prices in a manner that reflects the basic forces of supply and demand," he told the committee, and he distinguished AB 44 from emergency price‑gouging laws passed in prior sessions.

Krueger explained the bill’s mechanics: it identifies essential goods and services using Bureau of Economic Analysis categories in a five‑year look‑back, and it defines manipulation consistent with federal case law (artificial pricing, plans or stimuli that distort markets). The bill includes exceptions for industries already subject to rate regulation (for example, Public Utilities Commission regulation of energy) and for certain other regulated activities.

Opposition testimony was broad. The Vegas Chamber, Retail Association of Nevada, trucking, fuel retailers, telecommunications companies (CTIA, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Lumen), the National Home Service Contract Association and other industry groups testified or submitted letters opposing the bill as drafted. Their concerns included: - The statutory trigger (a comparison of current prices to a five‑year average for essential goods) is too blunt and could capture ordinary, nonfraudulent market adjustments, seasonal promotions (sales) and post‑pandemic price changes. - The bill’s broad definition of “essential goods or services” risks sweeping in most of Nevada’s economy and creating litigation risk for routine price changes. - Federal preemption concerns for interstate telecommunications and trucking; CTIA and carriers said the Federal Communications Act preempts state regulation of mobile service entry and rates. - Industry witnesses warned the measure could chill promotions (e.g., temporary sales), disadvantage retailers with different supply contracts, and impose substantial litigation costs on businesses.

Supporters included consumer advocates and some labor representatives; a small number of public commenters urged enforcement against alleged algorithmic manipulation of rental prices and other market conduct. Attorney General Ford said he and staff consulted stakeholders during drafting and removed a private right of action from the version before the committee in response to stakeholder concerns. He invited additional input and said the office remains open to amendments.

No committee vote was recorded in the transcript; the hearing produced extensive debate and written submissions from business and consumer groups.