Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection Digital Goods topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to require disclosure for limited-term digital goods; industry seeks technical fixes
Summary
House Bill 208 would require sellers to disclose when a digital good is not permanently owned by the purchaser and obtain affirmative acknowledgement for limited-time licenses; industry witnesses sought amendments to align the statute with California law and to narrow liability to sellers rather than third-party advertisers.
Delegate Andrew Pruski told the Senate Finance Committee that House Bill 208 is intended to prevent consumer confusion when digital goods are sold as permanent purchases but are actually limited licenses or revocable access. "Let me put this in plain language," Pruski said. "We've had constituents ... video games are moving to digital purchases. You actually don't buy a physical copy ... What's happening though is that there's a difference."
Pruski emphasized the bill would not require forced downloads or prohibit server-based access or subscription services; instead it focuses on cases where sellers offer a limited-term license alongside language that suggests permanence. He said the bill mirrors California's recent law and aims to "define consumer acknowledgement and purchasing in plain language."
Nick Mannis, representing the Motion Picture Association and the Entertainment Software Association, supported the bill with a technical amendment to replace the word "person" with "seller" in a key provision so liability attaches to the party transferring the license rather than an upstream advertiser or platform. "We just want to clarify that the seller is the one that is responsible," Mannis said, arguing that a marketplace or advertiser may have no way to verify compliance and should not face penalties for a seller's omission.
Two business groups, the Maryland Chamber of Commerce and the Maryland Retailers Alliance, asked the committee to align certain timing language with California (changing "at the time of sale" to "before executing the sale") and to remove criminal penalties from the bill. Grayson Wiggins of the Chamber recommended removing misdemeanor criminal penalties and adjusting the timing requirement to mirror California's checkout workflow.
Pruski said sponsors were willing to work with stakeholders on language, including the seller/person wording and checkout timing, and noted that the fiscal note showed limited administrative impact. The committee received written and oral testimony from industry and consumer advocates and heard requests for alignment with California precedent to reduce cross-jurisdictional compliance costs.
The committee did not take a final vote; senators asked staff to review the technical fixes proposed by industry and to confirm penalty and timing language compared with California's statute.
