Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill requiring cosmetics retailers to post return policies after consumer complaints
Summary
The committee passed HB 26-14 with amendments after testimony that state investigators received about 180 cosmetics complaints from 2020–2025 and referred many cases to a pending class action; DCCA told lawmakers clearer signage and enforcement would better inform consumers but would not replace civil litigation.
The House Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce on Feb. 12 voted to advance HB 26‑14, a bill that would require merchants selling cosmetics to accept returns of newer unopened goods within specified timeframes and post clearer return‑and‑refund signage.
Melissa Enright, an attorney with the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ Office of Consumer Protection, told the committee her office “stands on our written testimony and strong support” and provided updated figures: "There were actually a 180 cosmetic complaints that our office received, 54 of which are still under active investigation by our office, a 148 cases have been referred to the Bickerton Law Group for a class action that is currently pending." She said the complaints have “now totaled over $1,300,000.”
Why it matters: Enright and committee members framed the bill as a near‑term consumer‑protection tool. Enright said litigation can be slow and costly, and that statutory signage and enforcement would aim to reduce consumer confusion about return and exchange policies while preserving other civil remedies.
During questioning, lawmakers pressed whether signage would deter coercive sales tactics — for example, alleged practices such as detaining customers in back rooms. Enright acknowledged that bad actors may persist but argued clearer, conspicuous notices at entrances and at points of sale could discourage consumers from entering or make them more likely to refuse pressured sales. "We just think informing the consumers is always going to be helpful in these situations," she said.
Implementation and enforcement: Enright described an enforcement approach that begins with warnings; after three warnings the agency would require a merchant to post a provided, eye‑catching sign. She said the sign requirement would not preclude the Office of Consumer Protection or private parties from pursuing civil actions for deceptive or misleading practices.
Committee action and next steps: In the committee’s decision session, the chair recommended and members adopted passing HB 26‑14 with amendments that clarified and removed redundant language. The bill will move forward with the committee’s recommended changes.
What’s next: The committee adopted the chair’s recommendation and passed the bill with amendments. Further committee reports and floor action will determine the final language and effective dates.
