Price fixing on essential goods in Nevada targeted, but businesses are not on board

Yahoo

06-03-2025

LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — A bill that targets fraudulent and deceptive actions that try to manipulate prices of essential goods and services prompted a backlash from the business community on Wednesday in Carson City.
Food, clothing, gasoline, medicine, housing, household utilities, ground transportation, and phone and internet access were cited as essential needs. Attorney General Aaron Ford — a Democratic contender for governor in two years — wants a change in state law related to essential goods and services.
After Ford introduced Assembly Bill 44 (AB44), lawmakers challenged the bill on several points. But opposition from the business community went beyond that, casting the bill as an overreach that would apply to mom-and-pop businesses as well as the business giants like AT&T, home builders, auto dealers, generic drug manufacturers and even the Henderson Chamber — all who showed up to testify against it.
Breastfeeding, second chances and student trustees: A look at new bills in the Nevada Legislature
The bill specifies the kinds of increases it is targeting: 'The price for which results in the person paying more than $750 for the good or service over a 30-day period or $9,000 for the good or service over a 1-year period.' Proposed amendments are already looking to change that section of the bill, but substitute language that compares price changes over a five-year period doesn't appear to be a viable solution either.
Ford and Mark Krueger, chief deputy attorney general for the consumer protection bureau, had a bigger sales job to worry about.
Business representatives who showed up to testify in opposition seemed to think the bill could be targeting them. They presented all kinds of arguments, including conflicts with federal law, duplication in state law and the fear that AB44 would open everyone up to lawsuits by anyone who wanted to claim price fixing.
'Euthanasia pill' proposed as Nevada law after Gov. Lombardo's veto in 2023
Opponents argued that the bill's language is subjective and too broad, that it would scrutinize anyone who raised prices even when there were legitimate reasons. They said it doesn't take into account market conditions that could provide good reasons for higher prices.
'We're talking about knowingly engaging in fraudulent and deceptive conduct. That's the threshold,' Ford said. He and Krueger said it again and again. They presented that intent as an assurance to the people who protested. But they didn't make much headway.
Ford and Krueger tried to stop a belief that AB44 is an attempt at rent control, too.
Krueger's comment on deceptive trade practices gave businesses another reason to wonder whether they would be targeted. In particular, AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile all sent representatives to oppose the bill.
'We know what it looks like and we know that it's prevalent, especially when it preys on Nevadans,' Krueger said.
Jonathan Norman of the Nevada Coalition of Legal Service Providers was the only voice in support: 'This is about scammers trying to fleece Nevadans. And when I think of the consumers we see, the people we see coming into our offices, they almost uniformly no matter the issue have been … had economic harm happen to them. And I appreciate any bill that stands up for those consumers.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.