Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee hears cleanup changes to Nevada consumer-protection law in SB49
Summary
Senate Bill 49 was presented as a technical “cleanup” to clarify the attorney general’s authority, align administrative penalties with district court fines and tighten budgeting language for the Bureau of Consumer Protection; supporters reported stakeholder engagement and no organized opposition at the hearing.
The Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor heard Senate Bill 49 on May 1, 2025, a measure the Attorney General’s Office described as a cleanup of Nevada’s consumer-protection statutes intended to clarify enforcement authority and administrative procedures.
Mark Krueger, chief deputy attorney general with the Bureau of Consumer Protection, told the committee the bill clarifies “the authority of the attorney general to bring causes of action on behalf of the state and its agencies or persons as parens patriae,” and aligns administrative fines with the larger penalties the Legislature raised in 2023. “It gives us the ability to go either route, depending on the type of violation and severity of the violation,” Krueger said, describing the change as creating parity between district court fines and administrative penalties.
The bill also includes language limiting how funds within the Attorney General’s Office and the Bureau of Consumer Protection may be used and requires separate budget maintenance after the Governor’s Finance Office and AG fiscal staff requested clarification. Krueger said a confidentiality-related amendment was added to ensure documents are treated as confidential when turned over.
Stakeholders who testified in neutral indicated they had worked with the Attorney General’s Office on the amendment language. Brian Wachter, senior vice president of the Veil Association of Nevada, said the association appreciated the office’s stakeholder engagement and called the amendment “aligned with their intent in a way that is not prohibitive to retailers in Nevada.” Andy McKay, executive director of the Nevada franchise auto dealers association, said his group moved from strong opposition to neutral after participating in a working group with the AG’s office.
No callers registered support or opposition during the remote participation portion of the hearing, and no formal action or vote occurred during the committee hearing on SB49.
Background and context: committee staff noted sections 1, 2, 5–10 were deleted by amendment; section 3 clarifies parens patriae authority; section 4 raises administrative penalties to match chapter 598 penalties; section 11 clarifies permissible uses of funds; section 12 adds litigation-related clarification; and section 13 is the effective-date provision.
The committee closed the SB49 hearing after stakeholder testimony and moved on to subsequent bills.
