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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
KY Rep. Thomas Massie is at odds again with Trump over Iran. Here's the history
Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and President Donald Trump don't always see eye-to-eye. In fact, the two Republicans have been at odds for most of Trump's second term. Massie was one of only two House Republican 'no' votes on the president's massive spending bill, and he's been the loudest voice in the room against Trump's actions against Iran. And on Saturday, Massie led GOP opposition to the Trump administration's intervention in the Israel-Iran war by striking three Iranian nuclear development sites. Trump has repeatedly called the 4th Congressional District Rep. a 'grandstander' and said earlier this year he 'should be primaried.' The past few months are just the latest in a long history between Massie and Trump, though. The pair agree on many conservative principles, and have endorsed each other at points, but Massie's relationship with has been among the most frictional of any sitting lawmaker over the years. Here's a timeline: Massie, a critic of most precautionary measures adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic, forced an in-person vote on a Trump-backed relief package early in the pandemic in 2020. Members of both parties criticized Massie, and Trump called him a 'third-rate grandstander.' The president also urged Republican leaders at the time to 'throw Massie out of Republican Party.' Later that year, a GOP primary challenger's attempt to brand Massie as disloyal to the president fell far short of success. The challenger, Todd McMurtry, notched 19 percentage points to Massie's 81. During the next election cycle, Claire Wirth took a similar tack and lost by roughly the same margin. Shortly after Massie's primary win, Trump endorsed him for the general election, calling the representative a 'Conservative Warrior' and a 'first-rate Defender of the Constitution.' In 2023, Massie hitched his wagon to the GOP presidential primary campaign of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The governor was viewed widely as the most viable Republican alternative to Trump. Massie made several out-of-state appearances with DeSantis before DeSantis withdrew from the race in early 2024. In May 2024, Massie trounced his two GOP primary opponents, including Eric Deters, a Northern Kentucky political figure who has hewed close to Trump. In October 2024, just 11 days before the general election, Massie endorsed Trump in his ultimately successful bid for president. One of Trump's first legislative priorities was a funding bill that averted a government shutdown. Massie was the only 'no' vote on the bill in March of this year, prompting Trump's call that he 'should be primaried,' and vowing to 'lead the charge against him.' In the midst of that scrum, former co-manager of the Trump 2024 presidential campaign Chris LaCivita posted a cryptic message on social media indicating he'd work against Massie. As of late June, a legitimate primary challenger has yet to be announced. On Trump's wide-reaching 'Big Beautiful Bill,' Massie was unflagging in his opposition, citing its likelihood of increasing the national deficit and not cutting entitlement programs like Medicaid as much as he'd like. Trump made a pitch to Massie face-to-face at a House GOP caucus meeting in May, and Massie was unmoved. Two days later, Massie was one of just two House GOP members to vote no on the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Since the conflict between Israel and Iran has heightened in the last 10 days, Massie has been one of the leading anti-intervention voices on the American right. Trump has not responded directly to Massie's activism, which turned to stark criticism following the U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites Saturday. Massie has asserted that the administration needed to consult Congress before launching the attack, and last week introduced a resolution against U.S. involvement in the war. Massie joined his resolution's co-sponsor, California Democrat Ro Khanna, for an interview on CBS Sunday denouncing the strikes. He framed the aggression as going against a crucial part of the new Republican party that stands against foreign intervention, adding he believes it was 'a good week for the neo-cons in the military industrial complex who want war all the time.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Americans react to US strikes on Iran with worry as well as support for Israel
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — One of Layton Tallwhiteman's earliest memories was watching the news at his uncle's house in Montana in 2003 and seeing the U.S. bomb Baghdad to launch the war in Iraq. Recollections of that war — waged in part to find weapons of mass destruction that did not exist – flooded back for Tallwhiteman after President Donald Trump ordered weekend bombing strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities amid its escalating conflict with Israel. The administration has indicated it wants to avoid getting pulled into all-out war. Tallwhiteman, who grew up on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation southeast of Billings, is skeptical. 'Their idea is to eliminate the threat. Like Bush said in Iraq, 'We're going to eliminate the threat. We're going to find weapons of mass destruction and eliminate them.' Did that work the way he planned? No, obviously it didn't,' said Tallwhiteman. The 30-year-old driver for a food distribution company said he usually votes Libertarian, but backed Democrat Kamala Harris over Trump last year. Across the U.S. on Sunday, Americans expressed a mixture of support, apprehension and confoundment at the bombings, which officials said caused severe damage to Iran's nuclear sites. Administration officials said the strikes left room for Iran to return to negotiations over its nuclear program. Yet if the conflict spirals, it could test Trump's foreign diplomacy skills and also his support at home. 'It had to be done' B-2 bombers that participated in the weekend strikes returned home to Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri on Sunday. Nearby, retired Air Force veteran Ken Slabaugh said he was '100% supportive' of Trump's decision and the military personnel who carried it out. Slabaugh said Iran has showed resistance to negotiations over its nuclear program for decades, a problem that he said Trump inherited. Iran can't be trusted, Slabaugh said, nor allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. 'It simply had to be done,' he said of the strikes, adding that he's now concerned for members of the military around the world. 'I'm proud of the guys and the gals that are doing the work out there. Nobody in the world does this like we do, and we have the freedom and liberty we enjoy because of that,' Slabaugh said. In Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, Andrew Williams, 18, said he was surprised by the timing of the attack given that many Republicans had expressed opposition to U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war. Still, he thought it was necessary if Iran was building nuclear weapons. 'If we are able to get rid of that, that is something we should do,' Williams said. Robert Wallette of Billings said Trump had 'good reason' to conduct the bombing as a demonstration of American support for Israel. 'Iran's evil, evil people. They hate Americans,' he said. Concern about conflict spinning out of control Wallette, 69, a retired contract specialist at the federal Indian Health Service, said he hated Trump when the Republican was first elected because of his arrogant style. His perspective started to shift after Trump moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In 2024, Wallette voted for Trump based on his promises to curb illegal immigration, putting him among the 60% of voters backing Trump last year in Yellowstone County, which includes Billings. Notwithstanding his support, Wallette was unsure if Trump can avoid the U.S. getting drawn into a deeper conflict with Iran. 'Other countries are getting involved and this may be out of his control,' he said. Kent Berame, 32, of Davie, Florida, said it was a little outrageous for Trump to go rogue and approve the attack without explicit support from Congress. He said he doesn't agree with the United States supporting Israel's recent attacks on Iran. 'There's concern that we're putting troops in danger,' said Berame, a Democrat who owns his own marketing company. 'And obviously there's a retaliatory response toward all of our bases over there.' Berame said it's frustrating that the U.S. might be increasing hostilities with Iran just a few years after finally ending the war in Afghanistan. 'I don't want to see any U.S. soldiers in harm's way or in danger,' he said. Back in Billings, Trump voter Patty Ellman said she worries about the U.S. getting sucked into another extended conflict. 'We have enough going on in America to get into other countries' wars. Let's just take care of us right now,' she said. Ellman, a 61-year-old who stepped in as caregiver for her ex-husband after he suffered a stroke, said the U.S. should retaliate if attacked, but otherwise stay out of Iran's conflict with other countries. 'That's their business,' she said. 'We need to worry about Americans and how we're going to survive and are we going to have Social Security.' With contributions from David Fischer in Davie, Florida; Nicholas Ingram in Knob Noster, Missouri; and Mingson Lau in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Could there be a military draft? Fears rise after US strike on Iran
Heightened tensions following the United States' June 21 attack on Iranian nuclear facilities has brought the specter of a military draft to the forefront of the minds of many. The U.S. struck three nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan June 21 in what has been dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer." In a June 22 Truth Social post, President Donald Trump said he was open to a regime change in the country, hours after Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. did not want a regime change. There are currently no bills before Congress to institute a draft, however the Washington Post reported last year that influential former administration officials as well as some GOP lawmakers have publicly suggested a "national service mandate." Here's what you need to know about a possible military draft. Fallout of US attack on Iran: US warns of 'heightened threat environment' after strikes on Iran nukes When was the last time the draft was used? The last draft call occurred in 1972, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine, and the draft was announced to be no longer in use by then Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird on Jan. 27, 1973. The final person inducted into the U.S. military – Dwight Elliott Stone, a 24-year-old apprentice plumber from Sacramento, California, – entered the Army on June 30, 1973, according to the magazine. Who would be in charge of reinstating the draft? Legislation would need to be passed through Congress amending the Military Selective Service Act in order to reinstate a draft, according to the Selective Service Agency. In 2015, then New York Democratic Representative Charles Rangel introduced a bill to re-instate a draft alongside a "War Tax" bill to point out the inequity of war as then President Barack Obama attempted to galvanize support for an Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. "When I served, the entire nation shared the sacrifices through the draft and increased taxes. But today, only a fraction of America shoulders the burden. If war is truly necessary, we must all come together to support and defend our nation," Rangle, who served in the Korean War, said in a statement at the time, according to The Hill. Who would be eligible for a draft? Currently, all men between 18 to 25 are required to register with the Selective Service System. The Selective Service Agency states that, should a draft be reinstated, the first to receive induction orders would be those whose turn 20 years old during the year of the lottery. Additional drafts would follow for those turning 21 through 25, then 19 and 18 would occur if additional soldiers were required. Who would be ineligible for the draft? All of those who have registered with the Selective Service are presumed to be eligible to be drafted. The only exemptions from Selective Service registration are if a man: A draftee could request to be reclassified, including as a conscientious objector, after he is drafted but before the day he is due to report. High school and college students can ask for service to be postponed while draftees can request hardship deferments. Ministers, certain elected officials and some dual nationals would be exempt from the draft.
