Latest news with #AssemblyBill44
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Once Legislature adjourns, all eyes will be on Lombardo's veto pen
(Photo by Trevor Bexon/Nevada Current) As of late Sunday, 223 bills were listed by the Nevada State Legislature as being in Gov. Joe Lombardo's office, and dozens more are headed his way. So far, the first-term Republican governor has vetoed just one bill and signed 169. For comparison, Lombardo vetoed 75 bills in 2023, setting a single-session veto record. He signed 535 bills. Nevada governors usually have five days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill after it gets to their desk. Legislative rules extend that timeframe to 10 days in the waning days of the session. That means vetoes could be announced into next week. So what might Lombardo veto this year? Below are the bills the Nevada Current has covered that are now on veto watch. We've organized them by how bipartisan their journey through the Legislature was. That said, Lombardo last session did veto bills that passed unanimously, and he signed bills that the Republican caucuses voted against. Assembly Bill 44 (Attorney General Aaron Ford, D) seeks to crack down on 'knowingly deceptive' price fixing. All Republicans opposed the bill, as did a few Democrats. Assembly Bill 201 (Assemblymember Erica Roth, D) would expand efforts to automatically seal eviction records. Assembly Bill 209 (Assemblymember David Orentlicher, D) would grant sex workers immunity from criminal liability from prostitution-related offenses if they call 911 seeking medical assistance. Assembly Bill 223 (Assemblymember Venicia Considine, D) would give tenants more power to hold landlords accountable for failing to provide livable conditions. Assembly Bill 280 (Assemblymember Sandra Jauregui, D) proposes rent stabilization for seniors. Assembly Bill 283 (Assemblymember Max Carter, D) would restructure the eviction process. Assembly Bill 411 (Assemblymember Sandra Jauregui, D) would allow prescriptions for drugs used for medical abortions and miscarriage management to list the name of the prescribing health care practice, rather than the name of the specific individual providing the prescription. Assembly Bill 441 (Assemblymember Daniele Monroe-Moreno, D) would change how Opportunity Scholarships are administered. Senate Bill 350 (State Sen. James Ohrenschall, D) would extend the time period the state has for carrying out an execution of someone on death row. Assembly Bill 398 (Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, D) would provide additional pay for public school district teachers in hard-to-fill positions and establish a fund for broader charter school raises. Yeager amended the charter school provision into the bill after Lombardo threatened to veto the K-12 education budget over the issue. AB 398 passed the Legislature with broad bipartisan support, with only Democratic Assemblymember Natha Anderson opposing. After its final vote, Lombardo signed the K-12 budget bill, a strong sign he will likely sign AB398. Assembly Bill 555 (Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, D) would prohibit private insurance companies from charging people more than $35 for a 30-day supply of insulin. The bill received broad bipartisan support, with only Senate Republicans John Ellison and Robin Titus opposing. Assembly Bill 452 would ensure customers receive full refunds with interest for overcharges and extend regulatory timelines for rate case reviews. The bill received bipartisan support, with eight of 15 Assembly Republicans supporting the bill. All eight Senate Republicans voted for the bill after an amendment. Assembly Bill 96 would mandate that cities and counties with populations exceeding 100,000 people include 'heat mitigation' as part of their master plans. The bill passed with some bipartisan support. Three of 23 Republicans supported the bill. Assembly Bill 457 (Assemblymember Venicia Considine, D) originally sought to close a potential loophole that can be used by corporate landlords to avoid paying the state's commerce tax. It has now been amended into a study on the issue. Only one Republican, Assemblymember John Steinbeck, supported the bill. Assembly Bill 217 would prohibit school employees from granting permission to immigration officers to enter a school, or provide student records, including information on a student's family, without a warrant. Six of 23 Republicans joined Democrats in support. Assembly Bill 185 (Assemblymember Natha Anderson, D) would bar most HOAs from prohibiting licensed home-based childcare operations within their communities. Fourteen of 23 Republicans opposed. Senate Bill 69 (Storey County) would require companies seeking massive tax abatements to enter into agreements to defray the costs of the government-provided services they would require. Seven of 23 Republicans opposed. Assembly Bill 215 (Assemblymember Daniele Monroe-Moreno, D) would prohibit high school teenagers from working between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. before a school day. The bill received broad bipartisan support, with just three Senate Republicans voting against it. Assembly Bill 502 would boost the state's ability to investigate and enforce prevailing wage violations. The bill received broad bipartisan support,with only two Assembly Republicans opposing. Assembly Bill 112 (Assemblymember Duy Nguyen, D) would allow workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to use their accrued leave to care for family members. The bill passed the Legislature with some bipartisan support. Senate Bill 121 (State Sen. Dina Neal, D) changes what homeowners' associations are allowed to require of new residents. Eight of 23 Republicans supported. Senate Bill 348 (State Sen. Julie Pazina, D) would increase the fee hospitals pay the Nevada State Public Health Lab for a newborn screening panel to expand newborn screenings for rare diseases. Thirteen of 23 Republicans supported. Assembly Bill 241 (Assemblymember Sandra Jauregui, D) would require counties to speed up the process to rezone land currently designated commercial use into residential or mixed use. Three Republicans supported. Assembly Bill 121 (Assemblymember Venicia Considine, D) would require all non-optional fees, such as sewer and water, be listed in advertisements for rental properties. It would also require landlords to offer a way for tenants to pay rent without added processing fees. Three Republicans voted for the bill. Assembly Bill 211 (Assemblymember Venicia Considine, D) would allow a third party to take over the property until repairs are made and living conditions improved. The bill passed with broad bipartisan support, with only Republican state Sen. Robin Titus opposing. Senate Bill 88 would discharge medical debt from those incarcerated once they leave prison. The bill received broad bipartisan support. Senate Bill 54 would require the state's Department of Health and Human Services to apply for a federal waiver and amend the state Medicaid plan to cover medical respite care for people experiencing homelessness. Assembly Bill 321 (Assemblymember Jovan Jackson, D) seeks to establish a pathway for formerly incarcerated people to work as firefighters with the Nevada Division of Forestry. Assembly Bill 104 would establish the Nevada Voluntary Water Rights Retirement Program, which would allow willing landowners to sell their water rights back to the state through the year 2035. Assembly Bill 277 (Assemblymember Rich DeLong, R) would make the Net Proceeds of Minerals Bulletin public again. Assembly Bill 176 (Assemblymember Selena Torres-Fossett, D), known as the Right to Contraception Act, would strengthen protections against a state or local government burdening access to contraceptive measures. Senate Bill 353 (State Sen. Marilyn Dondero Loop, D) would increase Medicaid reimbursement for mental health providers.
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Industries line up to tear down proposal to rein in price-fixing
"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.
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Industries line up to tear down proposal to rein in price-fixing
"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.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Price fixing on essential goods in Nevada targeted, but businesses are not on board
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.
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ford sponsors bill to confront ‘unfair' pricing
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford said the legislation stems from 'several investigations and litigations my office has been active in" dealing with "prices of essential goods and services," including food and shelter. (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) With the Trump administration indicating little interest in the federal government's consumer protection role, it could be up to states to prohibit and prevent corporate landlords from using algorithm software to inflate rents via price fixing. Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford has brought forward Assembly Bill 44 to regulate price fixing of essential goods and services, including shelter, food and medicine. Ford's office declined to say how the legislation, if passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the governor this year, would specifically address alleged practices by real estate software companies, like RealPage, that are being investigated for price fixing rents. 'We can't address hypotheticals about specific companies but to the extent any business' operation violates the provisions as laid out in AB 44, our office will not hesitate to utilize the statute to protect Nevada's consumers,' the office said in an email. The White House Council of Economic Advisors under former President Joe Biden released an analysis in mid-December that found RealPage and other firms that market rent price algorithms r likely cost renters more than $3.8 billion in 2023. Rent-pricing algorithms added on average $92 a month for units in Las Vegas that use such software, according to the report. The national average was $70 per month. 'Our analysis indicates that if price coordination was eliminated, there would be an economically meaningful decrease in price mark-ups for rental units using pricing algorithms,' the report found. The White House has since removed the analysis from the website after President Donald Trump returned to office last month. A ProPublica investigation from 2022 found rental pricing software by RealPage used algorithms to collect lease transaction data and advertised rates. The data was used to effectively tell landlords the highest rent an apartment applicant is able to pay, and then charge it. Greystar, one of the nation's largest property management firms, featured prominently in the investigation. Greystar lists 44 apartment complexes under its management in Southern Nevada and five in the Reno area. Currently more than 30 lawsuits nationwide allege RealPage has colluded with corporate landlords to inflate rent prices The U.S. Department of Justice, along with Attorneys General of North Carolina, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington, filed a lawsuit against the company in August 2023 alleging it violated antitrust laws. The department expanded its antitrust lawsuit in early January, prior to Trump's inauguration. 'RealPage will continue to aggressively defend itself in the remaining, previously filed civil lawsuits, which we believe are wholly without merit,' RealPage said in a statement in December. 'RealPage's revenue management software is purposely built to be legally compliant, enhances competition throughout the rental housing ecosystem and is highly configurable by our customers.' The future of the lawsuit remains uncertain under the new administration. Ben Iness, the coalition coordinator for the Nevada Housing Justice Alliance, said the state needs to take 'a bold and brave stance' to regulate the practice. Some states, including Washington, have introduced bills to specifically prohibit landlords from using software that collect rental data to fix prices. Lawmakers in New Jersey sought to make algorithmic systems unlawful, noting it would violate the New Jersey Antitrust Act. In an email to Nevada Current, Ford said 'AB44 is designed to curb unfair methods of increasing prices' in general and would attempt to regulate price fixing essential goods and services under the Nevada Unfair Trade Practice Act. The legislation, Ford added, stemmed from 'several investigations and litigations my office has been active in during my time as Attorney General.' He said details of those investigations are not yet public. 'These investigations and litigations have to do with the prices of essential goods and services like food, medicine, shelter, and the ability of companies to raise those prices to levels that impact consumers ability to purchase them,' he said. The threshold for violating the law under the bill is when a person pays '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.' When asked about the threshold amounts, Ford said he was looking to 'balance the concerns of various industries with the need to curb the unfair practices that take advantage of consumers who must have regular, continual access to essential goods and services.' He anticipated 'further discussions on these thresholds to occur throughout the legislation session.' Iness noted that while the legislation is significant and has the potential to rein in rent-price fixing, the bill 'in the current form is broad and vague.' He urged lawmakers to 'explicitly name' the practices they are looking to regulate. 'I would love, during that hearing, that they talk about housing scarcity, cost fixing and the exploitative factors around renting,' he said. Lawmakers are expected to introduce a variety of bills this session to address the state's housing shortage and costs, as well as a landlord-tenant regulatory framework in Nevada that critics say is uniquely landlord hostile compared to most states. Gov. Joe Lombardo named housing as one of his top legislation priorities in his state of the state address last month, and called on $1 billion in new attainable housing units, supported by some direct state spending, the Nevada State Infrastructure Bank, and bonds. The details of that legislation have yet to be released. Iness said addressing the housing crisis needs to go beyond building more units and include expanding tenant protections. 'If folks are going to take our housing crisis seriously they need to look at all sides of it and not just the one-dimensional supply and demand approach,' Iness said.
