Nevada attorney general proposes law targeting fraudulent price manipulation of essential goods; business groups warn language is too broad

Attorney General Aaron Ford told the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor on March 5 that Assembly Bill 44 would make it unlawful for a person to "knowingly engage in fraudulent or deceptive conduct" that manipulates the price of essential goods or services in Nevada.

Ford, who presented the bill, said it would use the state—s existing unfair trade practices framework to target price fixing and deceptive market manipulation rather than ordinary market responses. "This bill does not prohibit companies from setting prices in a manner that reflects the basic forces of supply and demand," Ford said during the hearing.

The bill, as explained by Mark Krueger of the Attorney General—s Office Bureau of Consumer Protection, would add a provision to NRS chapter 598A prohibiting manipulation when a person knowingly uses fraudulent or deceptive means to cause prices to increase beyond what basic supply and demand would produce. Krueger said the bill relies on categories from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and a rolling five-year lookback of Nevada personal consumption expenditures to set thresholds for what counts as an increase involving essential goods or services.

Why it matters: Ford framed the bill as consumer protection during hard economic times, saying many Nevadans face high unemployment and pressure on household budgets and that fraudulent actors can worsen those strains. Supporters who testified said the measure could protect small consumers and providers from schemes that artificially inflate costs.

Opponents, including multiple retail, housing and trade groups and telecommunications companies, told the committee the amendment language is too broad and could expose ordinary businesses to lawsuits. Housing-industry witnesses warned the bill could be used to sue landlords and developers and said the proposed dollar thresholds did not account for market volatility. Telecommunications witnesses said federal regulation by the FCC raises preemption concerns and asked for explicit exemptions. Several business witnesses urged clearer definitions, stronger cost defenses and removal of the private right of action.

Attorney General Ford and his staff responded to repeated questions about scope and enforcement. They said regulated utilities whose rates are set by a regulator would be exempt, and that the statute targets knowing, deceptive or fraudulent conduct rather than legitimate price increases caused by higher input costs or supply shortages. Ford also said his office would continue stakeholder talks and that he expects to submit an updated amendment after the hearing. Mark Krueger told the committee he would remove the bill—s private right of action and leave enforcement to the Attorney General—s Office to address concerns about litigation exposure.

What committee members asked and what witnesses said: Committee members pressed the sponsor on how "knowing" and "manipulate" would be applied, whether one business acting alone could be swept up, and how the statute would interact with regulated utilities. Business groups—from the Vegas Chamber and the Retail Association of Nevada to homebuilder and apartment owner groups—said the definitions and the five-year baseline approach could falsely label ordinary price responses as unlawful and expose businesses to costly suits.

Telecom industry witnesses including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon and industry trade groups told the committee their services are federally regulated and asked for language that would avoid state-level regulation of interstate telecommunications pricing.

Outcomes and next steps: No vote was taken. The attorney general said he would submit an updated amendment and continue stakeholder negotiations; his office publicly committed during the hearing to remove the private right of action from the bill and to consider clarifying amendments addressing scope, the in-state transaction question, and utility exemptions.

Ending note: Proponents said the bill fills a perceived gap in enforcement against targeted fraudulent price-fixing of essentials; opponents said the draft needs narrower language and clearer defenses to avoid chilling ordinary commercial decisions. The committee did not take a final action on AB 44 during the hearing.