Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection Deceptive Practices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor replaces AB 101 with broader deceptive-practice proposal; opponents worry about scope and notice
Summary
Assemblymember David Orentlicher presented a conceptual amendment that replaces AB 101's original language with a proposed addition to Nevada's deceptive trade practices statute (NRS chapter 598) to prohibit deceptive statements before transactions occur; witnesses and callers expressed concern about vague language, notice to the public and the
Assemblymember David Orentlicher introduced a conceptual amendment to Assembly Bill 101 that would add a new prohibition on deceptive statements in consumer transactions to Nevada's deceptive trade-practices statutes (NRS chapter 598). "The proposed addition ... would prohibit people from making deceptive statements about their products or services," Orentlicher said, and he framed health-care examples — including clinics offering unproven stem-cell treatments — to illustrate risks when consumers are misled before they enter a transaction.
Orentlicher said the amendment would allow regulators and prosecutors to act before a consumer completes a purchase or receives an unsafe or ineffective treatment. "The harms to consumers from deceptive health care services are not just financial, but also can be health related, even life threatening," he told the committee and asked legal staff to help answer questions.
Legislative Counsel Bureau legal counsel David Noss explained that the amendment's subject matter (prohibiting deceptive statements) falls within the scope of the bill title and legislative rules, noting the final determination on germaneness rests with Legislative Council. Michael Morton, special assistant attorney general, described remedies in NRS chapter 598, including injunctive relief and civil penalties available for deceptive trade-practice violations.
Several organizations and members of the public testified in opposition or expressed concern. Melissa Clement of Nevada Right to Life said she was "disappointed" the original bill language was removed and warned the amended language was vague and could be used for nuisance lawsuits; she asked who would decide what qualifies as deceptive. Janine Hanson of Nevada Families for Freedom said she welcomed removal of the original language but remained wary of the amendment's breadth and lack of clarity. Multiple callers and speakers, including volunteers from pregnancy resource centers and other organizations, urged that the public and stakeholders had inadequate notice that the bill's language had been replaced and asked that the record be clear about how the amendment would be applied.
Other callers and written commenters raised constitutional and free-speech concerns and asked for clarity on definitions and enforcement. Several people representing crisis pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations argued the amendment could be used to restrict truthful speech about pregnancy services and urged the committee and sponsor to provide more specific text. Callers who opposed the original bill and supporters of the amendment both asked for the actual amendment text to be posted and for additional time to review it.
Orentlicher closed by saying he appreciated the feedback and would work to clarify language; the committee did not take further action during the hearing.
The hearing record includes substantive legal discussion about the proper statutory place (NRS chapter 598) for deceptive-trade-practice prohibitions and multiple requests from the public and stakeholder groups for clearer drafting and public notice before the committee considers the amendment again.
