Ohio Senate panel hears proponent testimony for bill to create regulatory 'sandbox' and Regulatory Relief Office

Proponents of Senate Bill 90 told the Senate General Government Committee on Feb. 17 that the bill would create a universal regulatory sandbox program and a Regulatory Relief Division within the Common Sense Initiative Office to help innovators test new products and services under limited regulatory relief.

Tony Long, general counsel and director of energy and environmental policy at the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, testified that SB 90 would extend Ohio’s regulatory test program beyond financial services to a broader set of industries and place administration of the sandbox inside the Common Sense Initiative Office. "This legislation creates a general regulatory sandbox program for novel products and services in Ohio," Long said, noting that "as of early 2026, 14 states have enacted regulatory sandbox legislation" and pointing to Utah as an active example of cross-sector sandbox use.

The bill would permit the Regulatory Relief Division to review existing state laws and regulations and recommend changes to the governor and the General Assembly, and could negotiate reciprocity agreements with other states that operate similar programs, Long said. He added that the division would also serve as a liaison between regulators and participating companies.

Why confidentiality and executive-branch placement matter

Senator DeMora pressed proponents on two recurring concerns: confidentiality of sandbox applications and why the program would be housed in the governor’s office rather than being run by the legislature. "This bill treats sandbox applications as confidential records. So how are we as legislators and the public to evaluate whether the exceptions are being granted responsibly if the application is largely shielded from public scrutiny?" DeMora asked.

Long responded that the bill could be amended if the committee wished to reduce confidentiality protections and that an advisory committee including representatives of the governor, the House and the Senate would have the capability to review applications. On the question of placement, Long said the program deals with administrative regulation and therefore is most naturally administered in the executive branch; he also cited agency rule-review processes (JCAR) as an existing check.

Supporters emphasize guardrails and consumer protections

Hannah Cubbins, Legislative Director for Americans for Prosperity Ohio, also testified in support, saying SB 90 expands the concept used in a prior FinTech sandbox (Senate Bill 249) to a universal program. "The bill strikes a balance between encouraging innovation and protecting consumers by detailing guidelines of the program, record-keeping requirements, and requiring certain disclosures to consumers," Cubbins said. She said the Regulatory Relief Office would work with businesses to identify state laws that could be waived while participants are in the sandbox.

When asked who decides whether an application is accepted, Cubbins said she expected the Common Sense Initiative and the Regulatory Relief Office would administer the process but that she could not provide specific procedural details on the spot. Regarding limits on waivers, she said she was not familiar with a definitive list of categories that would be excluded from waiver and suggested licensure or permitting requirements could be candidates for waiver; she stressed the bill includes consumer-protection language and said supporters are open to adding clearer exclusions for health and safety if the committee requests them.

Written testimony and next steps

The committee heard no in-person testimony opposed to SB 90; members were directed to written testimony from Jacob Flowers of the National Federation of Independent Business on their iPads. The committee concluded the bill’s second hearing without taking a vote.

The hearing record shows proponents arguing SB 90 could lower regulatory barriers for entrepreneurs and create a formal office to coordinate between agencies and businesses, while some members sought clearer language on confidentiality, oversight mechanisms and whether health- or safety-related regulations would be off-limits to waivers. The committee did not adopt amendments or hold a vote at this meeting; future committee action would determine whether the bill’s confidentiality provisions or placement in the executive branch are revised.