Committee advances business‑filing fraud bill to address identity theft and deceptive solicitations

House File 2566, the Minnesota Business Filing Fraud Prevention Act, received committee consideration April 3 as lawmakers weighed a new administrative process to correct fraudulent business filings and a separate set of provisions aimed at deceptive business solicitations.

Representative Breyer introduced the measure and called it "an important step in protecting Minnesotans from business identity fraud," saying victims often do not know they're affected until they face bills, tax liabilities or legal trouble for actions taken in a business name they did not authorize. "Having a direct path to challenge and remove wrongful filings ensures that victims can reclaim their businesses and identities without long delays and costly legal representation," Representative Breyer said.

The bill creates an administrative path at the Office of the Secretary of State for a person to file a declaration of wrongful filing. Deputy General Counsel Lauren Bethke told the committee the office currently lacks authority to remove a fraudulent filing without a court order. Under the bill, a complainant files a declaration, the office notifies the filer, the filer then has 21 days to respond, and the office can make preliminary and final determinations followed by marking a filing in the database as fraudulent and redacting unauthorized personal information. Bethke emphasized that the nonprevailing party would retain the right to appeal to district court.

Article 2 of the bill addresses deceptive mailings that purport to be official communications and attempt to charge business owners for services available for free through the Secretary of State's website.

Committee amendment and next steps

The committee unanimously adopted an oral change to the A6 amendment that replaces each instance of the term "fee" with the term "penalty" on the specified lines of the amendment. Mr. Sullivan, staff to the committee, explained the change applies to page 1, lines 3, 4, 8 and 9 of the A6 amendment. The A6 amendment was adopted and Representative Breyer renewed a motion to lay House File 2566 over for possible inclusion; the motion carried.

What was said and who testified

- Representative Breyer (author) framed the bill around identity theft and the need for an administrative remedy. - Lauren Bethke, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the Secretary of State, described the proposed notice, response and determination steps, and confirmed a party could seek judicial review in district court. - Mr. Sullivan (committee staff) explained the scope of the A6 wording change from "fee" to "penalty."

Staff and agency materials provided to the committee included letters of support referenced by the Secretary of State's office; committee members did not identify additional statutory citations during discussion.

Why it matters

Committee members described business identity fraud as a recurring problem the office fields daily and praised bipartisan work to give the Secretary of State a faster administrative tool to correct fraudulent records. The change from "fee" to "penalty" was presented as a technical drafting adjustment to align the amendment's language with enforcement intent.

The bill was laid over for possible inclusion; no final bill passage occurred in committee and no recorded roll‑call vote with member names or counts was provided in the transcript.

Ending

Because the bill creates a new administrative procedure and preserves judicial review, it could shorten the time and expense for alleged victims to see corrective action in the business filings database. The Office of the Secretary of State and committee staff will remain available for follow‑up as the bill proceeds through the legislature.