Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs ban on pet‑sale financing after constituent complaint and Attorney General inquiry
Summary
Senate Bill 528 would prohibit financing agreements for the sale of dogs and cats after a constituent reported being charged high interest on a pet purchase; retailers warned the ban could harm small businesses that rely on third‑party financing.
Senator Kim Hammer opened discussion of Senate Bill 528 by describing a constituent case an Attorney General complaint is now investigating: an 18‑year‑old buyer purchased a corgi with financing and later faced high interest and veterinary costs. "Making minimum payments on $4,800 alone is $177 per month. It'll take 13 years to pay it off," the sponsor said when describing the bridge loan and quoted rates.
Hammer said the bill "would prohibit a financing agreement for the sale of a dog or cat" and called it a consumer protection measure. Committee members asked whether existing law already covers predatory loans and whether the bill would be a narrow remedy for an anecdotal case; Senator Bryant and others noted enforcement by the Attorney General might address fraud.
Retailers and breeders testified in opposition. Drew Bhakta of Puppy Dreams in Southwest Little Rock said financing accounts for nearly 80% of his store's volume and that third‑party lenders (he named Lending USA) cap many rates near 29%. He said disclosures are provided and that banning financing would cost jobs and force business closures. Kate Patrick, a Petland franchise general manager, said financing options are disclosed and that pet retailers offer health warranties and post‑sale support.
The sponsor acknowledged the Attorney General inquiry and said the bill is meant as a safeguard if existing consumer protection does not suffice. The committee received public comment and ultimately approved the measure in committee.
