Senate committee hears debate on SB49 to bolster consumer-protection enforcement

CARSON CITY, Nev. — The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor heard testimony Tuesday on Senate Bill 49, a measure the Nevada Attorney GeneralOffice says would add administrative enforcement powers and align penalty amounts for consumer-protection laws.

Attorney General Aaron Ford told the committee SB49 is intended to "enhance our ability" to protect Nevada consumers and make enforcement "smoother." Mark Krueger, chief deputy attorney general and chief of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, described the measure as "basically, in all short term, a consumer protection cleanup bill," saying it would amend provisions in the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NRS chapter 598), the Unfair Trade Practices Act (NRS chapter 598A) and certain consumer-advocate provisions in NRS chapter 228.

The bill would give the Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection authority to pursue administrative actions similar to other state agencies, align administrative penalties with district-court penalties by raising a standard maximum administrative fine from $1,000 to $15,000 per violation, and remove the statute of limitations for claims under the Unfair Trade Practices Act so it matches the current status of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Krueger said. He told the committee the office seeks restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief and penalties when appropriate.

Why it matters: proponents said administrative authority and higher, congruent penalties give state enforcement more efficient tools to stop repeat offenders and secure restitution for harmed consumers. Opponents said those same changes could impose outsized liability on small businesses and increase costs for consumers.

Testimony for SB49 came from the Attorney General's Office, which highlighted recent enforcement work. Ford said the Bureau of Consumer Protection conducted more than 177 outreach and education efforts during the 202224 biennium and said the office has obtained "more than $185,000,000 in settlements and judgments" since he took office. He also listed past recoveries and settlements his office has pursued as examples of consumer-protection work.

Opposition and questions: business and trade groups warned the committee that SB49, as drafted, raises several concerns. Brian Wachter, senior vice president of the Retail Association of Nevada, said the draft increases the maximum administrative fine from $1,000 to $15,000 per violation and eliminates the statute of limitations for certain claims, which he called "a heavy financial burden" that could translate into higher costs for consumers and greater legal expense for businesses. Andy McKay, executive director of the Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association, and others voiced similar concerns.

Several senators pressed the Attorney General's Office and staff on procedural safeguards and practical application. Senator Daley asked how jurisdiction and hearing forums would be determined when enforcement authority overlaps among the Attorney General's Office, the Consumer Affairs Unit in the Department of Business and Industry (BNI), and the office's consumer advocate. Mark Krueger said existing law gives the consumer advocate authority to exercise the attorney general's consumer-protection powers and that regulatory and procedural protections (including those adopted by the Consumer Affairs Unit and provisions in NRS chapter 233B) already govern hearings. Cara Brown, an administrative law judge with the BNI Consumer Affairs Unit, asked the committee to consider clarifying language identifying which cases the director of BNI or the consumer advocate would hear.

Senators also asked about confidentiality and the treatment of documents obtained during investigations. Senator Daley asked whether confidential materials would remain protected after an investigation ends; Krueger pointed to NRS 598.0964 as the statutory confidentiality provision covering investigations and said the office could consider specific clarifying amendments.

Small-business groups raised the elimination of a statute of limitations and the increased penalty amount as their primary concerns, saying those changes could expose businesses to actions years after an alleged violation and increase legal costs. NFIB state director Trey Abney asked about record-retention burdens on small businesses for matters that arose years earlier.

No final action: committee members closed the hearing after public testimony. The committee did not take a committee vote on SB49 during the hearing.

What remains: sponsors and opponents signaled openness to further negotiations. Ford and Krueger said they are willing to work with stakeholders and that BNI staff and the Attorney General's Office had been engaged in drafting a friendly amendment addressing specific language in the bill. The committee will consider any formal amendments and take further action at a later date.

Ending note: testimony came from proponents including the Attorney General's Office and the Nevada Coalition of Legal Service Providers, and from opponents including the Retail Association of Nevada, the Henderson Chamber of Commerce, NFIB, the Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association and the Consumer Affairs Unit of BNI. The committee then closed the bill hearing and moved to public comment.