Yesterday, the Senate passed an expansive consumer protection bill that attempts to combat junk fees, price gouging, and various other consumer related issues. 

“I really do believe that this bill, Senate Bill 3, is one that is important for the residents of the state of Connecticut,” said Sen. Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), Senate Majority Leader. “Bills like this turn into national models.”

Prior to the bill’s passage, Sen. James Maroney (D-Milford) offered up a strike-all amendment, making significant changes to the original bill. Maroney walked through the amendment, section by section, before it passed in a 25-10 roll call vote.

Maroney explained that the bill, as amended, would consist of ten sections. The first section would require service providers to use “all-in” pricing disclosure. Essentially, it would require full disclosure of all mandatory fees prior to checkout, eliminating the use of junk fees. Maroney gave a personal example to explain the section’s purpose.

“I remember, just this year, I was trying to book a hotel, and I was comparing the different websites, and one of them had the all in pricing, and I went to the other site because I thought it was cheaper, but in the end I ended up paying more,” said Maroney. 

Section two would require any appliance, TV or toy that contains cameras or microphones to ask consumers whether or not they want their information sold for the purpose of targeted advertising upon activation. Section three would require manufacturers of various electronic devices or appliances to offer repair services to their customers.

“It allows the right to repair for smaller appliances and electronic devices,” said Maroney. 

Additionally, section three would require covered manufacturers to send parts and documentation to those who wish to repair their own devices. The manufacturers would be able to charge for the cost of the parts, as well as shipping and documentation costs.

Section four mandates that all municipalities move their websites over to a .gov domain, in an effort to increase municipal cybersecurity and prevent data breaches. Section five, perhaps the most controversial section, contains measures meant to prevent price gouging. Similar provisions were requested by Attorney General William Tong in February, though Maroney explained that lawmakers have since altered the language Tong requested.

“Earlier in the session, we did have bills from the Attorney General and the Governor on these,” said Maroney. “This bill language removes the language earlier on, where we were to allow the attorney general to declare an economic disruption, and it’s only based on an emergency declaration.”

Essentially, if the governor declares a state of emergency, then the attorney general can investigate instances of “unconscionably excessive prices” during the emergency, and provide the attorney general the ability to climb the supply chain to find the source of gouging. Maroney explained there is language that defines “fluctuation of prices that are part of normal courses of business,” as exempt from consideration as price gouging.

“So there was concern, because rental cars cost different if you’re renting them in February, when honestly, not as many people might want them as they do in the summer,” said Maroney. “So this wouldn’t draw that in as excessive pricing, if it’s based on normal business fluctuations.”

Section seven updates the state’s click-to-cancel statutes, requiring subscription services to provide subscribers with yearly reminders, allowing them to stop their subscriptions before they renew. It also requires subscription services to cancel within a certain number of days if a subscriber leaves a voicemail requesting a service cancellation.

The amendment added two additional sections, which would require all-in pricing to be used in housing. Essentially, prospective tenants would have to be able to clearly see mandatory fees that they would have to pay in addition to the rent on a listing’s advertisements.

After explaining the bill, Maroney fielded a series of questions from Sen. Paul Cicarella (R-North Haven), who was concerned with the junk fee language, as well as whether or not the price gouging language could draw in more speculative businesses.

“The price has to be clear and transparent, and I don’t disagree with that,” said Cicarella. “I just hope that there are not possibly unintended consequences with all of the different types of commerce that are going on, things that really can’t be controlled.”

Regarding price gouging, Cicarella asked what would be considered an “unconscionably excessive” price. Maroney explained that it is defined in the bill as a price that is “grossly disproportionate” to costs immediately preceding an emergency event, that is not attributable to additional costs incurred by the business selling it.

While Cicarella admitted that some of the language in the bill, specifically section two, provides good consumer protection measures, Sen. Rob Sampson (R-Wolcott) was an outspoken critic of the bill as a whole, believing it would impede the free market.

“I don’t think this has anything to do with consumer protection at all,” said Sampson. “This is more aptly titled something like, ‘An act interfering with markets, denying freedom and destroying economic opportunity, ’ because ultimately, I think that’s the end result of a policy like this.”

Sampson called the price gouging language a “direct violation of contract rights,” saying that price fixing doesn’t work. He also criticized the power the bill would place in the hands of the attorney general.

“What kind of system is that where one person gets to be the arbitrary decider of whether or not you’re charging too much for a product?” asked Sampson. “Let the marketplace work, is the lesson I am trying to explain.”

Sampson also took issue with the transparent pricing provisions for housing, saying housing is not a “cookie cutter, cut and dry thing.” He said that any sort of provisions taken towards altering the terms of housing agreements represented unnecessary interference, not consumer protection.

“You can not protect consumers by denying their freedom to negotiate,” said Sampson. “That is not protecting them.”

Sampson proposed an amendment that would remove the sections relating to housing pricing, but it failed to pass in a 24-11 vote. In spite of Sampson’s protests, the bill ultimately passed in a 25-10 vote.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.