Bill would require alarm companies to respond promptly after customers report defective systems; debate centers on five-day standard

Senate Bill 311, heard May 1, 2025, would impose new response and remedy requirements on alarm companies that contract to install and monitor alarm systems for Nevada consumers, including a requirement that companies repair or replace defective or inoperative systems or allow customers to cancel the contract and receive refunds for unearned payments.

Sponsor John Lisonbee (Senator, District 19) described frequent service failures in rural Nevada and elsewhere and said customers often cannot get companies to maintain systems after sale. “When you need that system in some areas, you've got to make sure they're going to work,” Lisonbee said. He told the committee the bill aims to hold alarm companies accountable and to allow customers to cancel contracts and receive refunds when companies cannot repair systems in a timely manner.

As amended in prior work sessions, the bill contains a five-business-day benchmark: after notice that a system is defective or inoperative, the company must act no later than five business days to repair or replace the system or permit contract cancellation and refund unearned payments. The bill also makes a violation of those provisions a deceptive trade practice under Nevada consumer-protection law. The sponsor indicated the measure, as revised in the Senate, was intended to apply statewide and only to contracts entered into on or after October 1, 2025.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on implementation details. Assemblymember Hardy asked whether the five days requires an on-site repair or merely setting an appointment; Lisonbee said he and some senators would accept a scheduled appointment so long as a date to perform work was scheduled within five days in many areas, but acknowledged rural travel times could complicate immediate repairs. Assemblymember Cole and others questioned how the bill treats user error (for example, a customer failing to replace a battery). Lisonbee said many problems can be screened or resolved by phone but emphasized the core problem is companies that no longer maintain systems in parts of the state while continuing to sell and collect payments.

Opponents included Nick Schneider, director of government affairs for the Vegas Chamber, who raised concerns about the five-day repair requirement and how section 1(3) would designate certain failures a deceptive trade practice, particularly where a failure might be caused by user error. Schneider said the Chamber had supported a prior amendment to limit the bill to rural counties but opposed the current five-day repair obligation as drafted and said the Chamber was willing to continue negotiations.

Several committee members recommended or sought a friendly amendment that would require a response within five days and a “good faith” repair effort over a longer window (for example, staff suggested 30 days for repair) to account for travel and parts delays in rural areas and practical limitations in urban areas. Assemblymember Kasama explicitly requested an amendment to require a five-day response and an extended repair window; the sponsor said he would accept that change as friendly.

The bill contains a definition section, sets penalties for violations through the deceptive trade practice designation, and (per sponsor remarks) applies to contracts entered or maintained on or after October 1, 2025. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing; the committee took stakeholder testimony and closed the hearing without formal action.

This hearing recorded stakeholder engagement from both rural and urban perspectives and highlighted trade-offs between customer protections and feasible response windows for alarm companies.