logo
Industries line up to tear down proposal to rein in price-fixing

Industries line up to tear down proposal to rein in price-fixing

Yahoo07-03-2025

"This bill does not cap in any kind of way how much someone can charge for something as long as they aren't knowingly, fraudulently or deceptively engaging in conduct" said the bill's sponsor, Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford.
Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford this week said his proposed legislation to crack down on 'knowingly deceptive' price fixing would bolster consumer protections and that opposition from industry groups are relying on 'a bit of hyperbole' to attack it.
'If you're not being deceptive, if you're not being fraudulent, this bill would not apply to you,' Ford said. 'If you are using deceptive and fraudulent means to manipulate the price of necessities beyond those basic forces of supply and demand, this bill speaks directly to your activities.'
Assembly Bill 44, heard Wednesday at the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor, expands the state's existing Unfair Trade Practice Act to include knowingly deceptive price fixing of essential goods and services.
The bill defines essential goods as those 'needed on a daily or recurring basis for the livelihood of a person,' including 'food, medicine and shelter.'
An amendment proposed prior to the hearing tweaked the definition to include 'food purchased for off-premises consumption, clothing and footwear, gasoline and other energy goods, pharmaceutical and other medical products, housing, household utilities, ground transportation, telecommunication services, and internet access.'
Ford told state lawmakers he was working on an additional amendment but didn't offer details of what it would include.
He said the efforts to crack down on price fixing came from concerns about the increased cost of housing.
Landlords and property owners have come under fire in recent years for using rent-fixing software to artificially raise the price of rents.
Real estate software companies, like RealPage, have been sued by several state attorneys general and the federal government in the last year. RealPage has denied wrongdoing in these cases. Nevada has not taken action against RealPage.
'We learned of rental prices being increased by virtue of some unfair and illegal price fixing tactics,' Ford said. 'We learned about that through not only complaints from our constituents but also from other attorneys general who are prosecuting agencies and entities that are engaging in that in their practice.'
The cost of living, the state's 'consistently high unemployment rate' and the potential of cuts to the federal social safety net programs such as Medicaid being considered by congressional Republicans are putting 'both the health and financial livelihoods of so many Nevadans at risk,' Ford said.
During times of financial stress, he added, it's easy for people to be exploited through deceptive practices including price fixing.
While the state does have a mechanism to go after some industries that engage in price fixing under the Nevada Unfair Trade Practice Act, he said the office was seeking more specific language to give them additional tools.
'This bill would fill current holes in statutes that have proven insufficient to stop these practices from occurring,' Ford said.
Multiple times during the hearing, Ford reiterated the bill wouldn't apply to businesses that have to increase prices because of inflation, supply chain disruptions or operational costs.
Still, many concerns around the bill stemmed from how the legislation would affect small businesses.
Republican Assemblymember Melissa Hardy, a former small business owner, questioned how the bill would affect businesses that have to raise prices 'because our rent went way up, or our products increased substantially.'
Ford said the scenario described was a basic instance of supply and demand.
'The threshold question for this bill is whether there has been knowingly fraudulent activity,' he said.
Ford used the example of a small business owner raising prices because the commercial space they occupy raised the rent. If the property owner colluded with other landlords or price-fixing algorithms to raise the rent for the small business owner, Ford said, the landlord 'might fall within the bill' but 'raising your prices because of your rent increase would not.'
The Vegas Chamber, Retail Association of Nevada, T-Mobile, AT&T, Nevada Realtors and the Nevada State Apartment Association were among the many industry groups opposed to the bill.
They labeled the legislation as overly broad, 'government price control' and government 'overreach.' One went as far as saying efforts to prevent deceptive price fixing would 'impose rent control.'
'The manipulation of price prevention, while it mentions fraudulent or deceptive conduct, will make normal, everyday market activities legally suspect,' said Miranda Hoover, a lobbyist with the Energy & Convenience Association of Nevada. The bill would mean 'raising prices for any reason could bring legal action and result in liability.'
Ford called their statements hyperbolic.
'We are talking about engaging in knowingly and deceptive conduct,' he said. 'That's the threshold. We don't get to the question about how much the price has increased … This bill does not cap in any kind of way how much someone can charge for something as long as they aren't knowingly, fraudulently or deceptively engaging in conduct. You can charge what you want to charge.'
He reminded lawmakers that some of the same groups against his bill also opposed efforts to restrict price gouging during a state of emergency.
AB 44 also includes price fixing by utilities, but the legislation exempts utilities that are already regulated by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. Several Democratic lawmakers questioned the strength of the provision and whether all the state's utilities would essentially be exempt under this provision.
'I can't think of any that are not already regulated,' Democratic Assemblymember Elaine Marzola said.
Ford said telecommunications providers, like AT&T and T-Mobile, were deregulated in the state. It is 'not beyond the pale of imagination that an entity that right now is regulated may no longer be regulated,' he added.
The Nevada Coalition of Legal Service Providers was the lone organization to testify in support of the bill.
'This is about scammers trying to fleece Nevadans,' said Jonathan Norman, the coalition's advocacy, outreach and policy director. 'When I think of the consumers we see, the people coming into our offices, they almost uniformly, no matter the issue, had economic harm happen to them. We appreciate any bill that stands up for those consumers'
The committee took no action on the bill.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Launch of mandatory Ontario Greenbelt review months overdue: internal docs
Launch of mandatory Ontario Greenbelt review months overdue: internal docs

Yahoo

time40 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Launch of mandatory Ontario Greenbelt review months overdue: internal docs

Ontario appears to be months behind launching a mandatory review of the Greenbelt, and opposition politicians and environmentalists are asking for a wide-ranging and transparent study of the protected lands to preserve their future. A mandatory 10-year-review of the Greenbelt Plan, which created the protected zone from development, was to have started earlier this year. As of late March that review had not formally begun, according to documents obtained by CBC News through a freedom of information request. Civil servants warned new Municipal Affairs Minister Rob Flack that the process should have started on Feb. 28, the day after Ontario elected the Ford government to a third term. "To date, (the Ministry) has initiated internal policy research and analysis, including developing possible approaches to consultation and Indigenous engagement," civil servants told the new minister in a March briefing note. The Greenbelt was created in 2005 to protect farm land and some of the most ecologically sensitive areas of the Golden Horseshoe region. The law provides environmental protection and specifies where development should not occur. The Greenbelt has been the subject of scandal for the Ford government since 2022, when it announced it would swap 15 pieces of land from the protected area and open them up for development. Reports from the auditor general and integrity commissioner found that the process to select lands was rushed and favoured certain developers. The property owners with land removed from the Greenbelt stood to see their land value rise by $8.3 billion, the auditor general found in her own Greenbelt investigation. Ford reversed course after heated public outcry and the RCMP continues to investigate the matter. WATCH | Ontario's 4 major parties say they would not build housing on the Greenbelt: The legislation that created the Greenbelt requires a review every decade. That involves consultations with municipalities within the protected area and members of the public. It also requires the government hear from its own Greenbelt Council, a body of 10 representatives it appoints to meet regularly and provide advice to the minister on land use planning related to the protected area. But the civil servants say that as of March, the council only had one member and no chairperson. According to the Greenbelt council's website Monday, the sole remaining appointee's term expires on June 24. Seven members of that body, including former Toronto mayor and PC cabinet minister David Crombie, resigned in 2020 in protest over changes the Ford government made to the powers of conservation authorities. But the civil servants are also clear about the parameters of the review — it's not meant to shrink the protected zone. "Amendments shall not have the effect of reducing the total land area of the Greenbelt Plan," the briefing note says. Minister Flack's office did not respond to questions from CBC News on the status of the review or the Greenbelt Council. The briefing note puts the Greenbelt review at the top of a list of early priority decisions for the minister, labelling it a "medium" operational and reputational risk for the government. Given the political trouble the government has had with the Greenbelt, NDP environment critic Peter Tabuns said he's not surprised work on the review has been slow to progress. "The fewer times the word Greenbelt is uttered in public the better for them," he said. "Having a really minimal review push through quickly would probably be politically the easiest thing for them." While the review may seem like a simple formality, it's needed to help strengthen the protected zone, Tabuns said. He urged the government to consult widely on how to strengthen the law. "Every 10 years you've got to look at it to make sure it's in good shape," he said. "To make sure it's protected in the hope that any future attack will be blunted." Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said he's concerned the province has nearly reached the halfway point of the year and hasn't made any meaningful progress on the review. "I think it is critically important for public confidence that this review take place, that it be rigorous, and it be designed in a way to ask questions about what we can do to strengthen the Greenbelt," he said. In light of the scandal, the government should use the review as a way to bolster public confidence in its management of the Greenbelt, Schreiner said. "I would say to the government, this is an opportunity to help you move forward in terms of the Greenbelt scandal and the public opposition that flowed from that, to say, 'We learned a lesson, and we're going to conduct a Greenbelt review, and we're going to do it in a way that talks about how to strengthen the Greenbelt,'" he said. The review must be expansive and the government must consult widely, said Tim Gray, the executive director of Environmental Defence. The last study, done a decade ago, took years and was substantive, he said."It is important that we do a check in and upgrade it where necessary, expand it where necessary, and address threats to it where it's necessary," Gray said. Tony Morris, conservation policy and campaigns director at Ontario Nature, said he's concerned the government will want to perform a quick review that "tinkers at the edges." "It's critical that the process be transparent and it be science-based," he said. "It must be open to Indigenous communities and all stakeholders to actually be involved and feel like they're being heard, which means that it has to be a well thought out process with appropriate timelines."

In the battle of Trump v Newsom, the president is winning the public
In the battle of Trump v Newsom, the president is winning the public

Yahoo

time41 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

In the battle of Trump v Newsom, the president is winning the public

In the on-going Battle of Los Angeles, California governor Gavin Newsom may have the law on his side – but his adversary president Donald Trump has the most powerful imagery. The conflict began in Los Angeles on Friday, when mobs of protestors attacked agents of the US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), who were trying to serve warrants on specific illegal immigrants at a Home Depot and also at a clothing store. On Saturday, during a protest in front of a nearby Department of Homeland Security (DHS) office, members of the crowd lit fires and threw rocks at federal officers, who defended themselves with tear gas and non-lethal ammunition. Later that day, president Trump authorised the deployment of 2000 members of the National Guard to protect the federal ICE agents; since then 700 American Marines have been added to the federal force. Governor Newsom and other leaders of the Democratic-dominated California have claimed that Trump's actions were not needed because local and state authorities had the situation under control. And yet on Sunday, following three days of violence and arrests, the Los Angeles Police Department declared downtown Los Angeles an 'unlawful assembly' area. And on Monday the state of California sued the Trump administration, claiming that Trump 'illegally acted to federalise the National Guard,' in the words of Newsom. Typically a governor requests a president to federalise and mobilise the National Guard to deal with riots or natural disasters. For example, consider the Los Angeles riots of 1992. It was sparked by the acquittal of four white police officers who beat a black motorist named Rodney King and it led to more than fifty deaths and a billion dollars of damage; in response a Republican California governor Pete Wilson asked a Republican president George HW Bush to federalise the National Guard. Not since 1965, when president Lyndon B. Johnson sent the National Guard to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators, has a president sent troops without a governor's request. While California officials might be able to make a legal case against the Trump administration, the state and the Democratic party risk losing in the court of public opinion. Viral photographs show masked rioters waving Mexican flags in front of burning cars and debris, supporting the Trump White House's inflammatory claims about an immigrant invasion. In a shrewd public relations move, the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has released mug shots under the heading: 'ICE Captures Worst of the Worst Illegal Alien Criminals in Los Angeles Including Murderers, Sex Offenders, and Other Violent Criminals.' The rogues' gallery contains illegal immigrants from a number of countries including Vietnam, the Philippines, and Mexico, charged with offenses including attempted rape, assault with a deadly weapon, grand theft larceny, distribution of heroin and cocaine, wilful cruelty to a child and other serious crimes. Democrats recently succeeded in reversing the allegedly unlawful deportation to El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador who was granted the right to remain in the US by a federal immigration judge. But on his return he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of being an MS-13 gang member who has smuggled thousands of illegal immigrants, drugs, and firearms in the US. Democratic strategists might ask whether someone like Abrego Garcia should be the face of the Democratic party. At least, unlike some of the rioters cavorting in front of burning wreckage in LA, he does not wear a mask. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest
After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest

USA Today

timean hour ago

  • USA Today

After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest

After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest | Opinion Rule No. 1: No protesting unless it's something Trump wants you to protest. Show Caption Hide Caption Australian journalist shot with a rubber bullet in Los Angeles Australian journalist from 9News, Lauren Tomasi, was shot with a rubber bullet while reporting from the protests in Los Angeles. President Donald Trump and his band of faux-macho nogoodniks keep poking the city of Los Angeles, hoping it will squeal and create the kind of violent theater that gives right-wing media its life force. First they sent in the National Guard to address predominantly peaceful anti-ICE protests, but the sprawling city failed to adequately burn. Now they're sending in U.S. Marines to get the job done. It's an intentional, dangerous and wholly unnecessary provocation. And based on how Trump and other Republicans have reacted to the ongoing protests, we should all be clear on the administration's new rules for protesting in America. Rule No. 1: No protesting unless it's something Trump wants you to protest For those who engage in liberal activities like reading and 'seeing things with your own eyes and believing they're real,' it might seem odd that the man who praised Jan. 6 insurrectionists as "great patriots" and then pardoned them all has the gall to call LA protesters 'insurrectionists.' Technically, there's nothing about the California protests that would make them an insurrection, while everything about the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, an effort to overturn a free-and-fair election, made it an actual insurrection. But that kind of fact-based thinking is now illegal, and protesters in Los Angeles and elsewhere need to understand that the First Amendment only applies to things Trump and Republicans want to hear. As border czar Tom Homan said on June 9 about the LA protesters: 'I said many times, you can protest. You get your First Amendment rights. But when you cross that line, you put hands on an ICE officer, or you destroy property or ICE says you impede law enforcement … that's a crime. And the Trump administration is not going to tolerate it.' Opinion: Trump lied about LA protests to deploy the National Guard. He wants violence. Correct. Unless you're a pro-Trump protester. In which case, breaking into a federal building, beating the snot out of police officers and destroying property is patriotic and easily pardonable. Rule No. 2: Protesters can only use American flags Video of California protesters waving flags from Mexico and other countries really upset a number of Republicans who have apparently never been in Boston on St. Patrick's Day. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said: 'This is an American city, and to be able to have an American city where we have people literally flying Mexican flags and saying 'you cannot arrest us' cannot be allowed.' If those protesters were waving a good old-fashioned American flag, it would be an entirely different story. But in Trump's America, flag choice matters. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called out 'left-wing radicals carrying foreign flags.' Vice President JD Vance declared on social media: 'Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers.' MIND THE FLAGS, PEOPLE! The rule seems pretty clear. Your First Amendment right only allows you to carry an American flag, unless you are a Trump supporter during an actual insurrection, in which case you can carry a Confederate flag, replace an American flag with a Trump flag or use an American flag on a pole to beat a police officer. Opinion: Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy Rule No. 3: No spitting on or disrespecting law enforcement officers In response to some LA protesters allegedly spitting on authorities, Trump declared on social media June 9: ' 'If they spit, we will hit.' This is a statement from the President of the United States concerning the catastrophic Gavin Newscum inspired Riots going on in Los Angeles. The Insurrectionists have a tendency to spit in the face of the National Guardsmen/women, and others. These Patriots are told to accept this, it's just the way life runs. But not in the Trump Administration. IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' Some might respond to this by saying, 'But the Jan. 6 insurrectionists whom you pardoned en masse did a lot more than just spit. They brutally attacked police officers, physically injuring more than 140 of them.' To which Trump would probably say: 'Shut up. Your First Amendment rights are hereby revoked!' Or he might say what he actually said when he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters after he was inaugurated Jan. 20: 'These are people who actually love our country, so we thought a pardon would be appropriate.' To clarify, the people who Trump thinks love this country, demonstrated by them loving him, are allowed to express that love by defacing a federal building they broke into and viciously assaulting police officers. People who Trump thinks don't love the country, demonstrated by them exercising their First Amendment right to protest things he doesn't want them to protest, will be beaten up for spitting. Follow Trump's protesting rules, or he'll call in the troops It's clear as mud, folks. Americans across the country should feel free to get out and protest, as long as it's for the right reasons and done in a way that aligns completely with the beliefs of Republicans and the Trump administration. Anything outside of that and they'll call in the National Guard. And the Marines. And, I guess, the flag police? Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store