Senate Democratic leaders unveiled two bills during a January 21 press conference that Senate President Martin Looney, D-New Haven, described as the next phase of the caucus’ priority bills for the session. The first bill proposes a variety of measures intended to improve consumer protection and the second aims to take steps to preserve residents’ access to healthcare in light of anticipated changes from President Donald Trump’s administration.
Looney said the bills cover two critically important areas. He spoke mostly about a portion of the consumer protection bill that will “prohibit price gouging at all levels of the supply chain.” Looney said that while the state has taken steps over the past decade to combat alleged price gouging, those measures are limited and are triggered by a declaration of emergency. He also hinted that the law will allow the state to go higher up the supply chain than retailers, whom Looney said in some cases are “passing along what’s imposed on them.
Looney also added that Democratic leaders worked with Attorney General William Tong to address alleged price gouging that occurs outside of these circumstances.
Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, spoke about why the caucus believes Trump’s return to the presidency makes the bills necessary. He described the inauguration as being “of billionaires, for billionaires, by billionaires” and that the legislation his caucus was rolling out was “of the people, for the people, by the people.”
Duff noted that SB 3, the consumer protection bill, passed the Senate last year but was not voted on by the House of Representatives and they hope to get the legislation “across the finish line in both chambers.”
Sen. James Maroney, D-Milford, who chairs the General Law Committee, which will vote on SB 3, discussed more of the bill’s particulars.
The bill, which is currently a concept draft, has six objectives: eliminating junk fees, prohibiting state agencies and municipalities from using drones manufactured by China or Russia, prohibiting the sale of certain information gathered from consumer electronics without their consent, requiring manufacturers to allow consumer goods to be repaired by third parties (sometimes called right to repair), prohibiting price gouging, and requiring all municipalities to use a .gov Internet domain. Because the bill is a concept draft, it does not yet contain any details about how these will be achieved.
Maroney called the measure on price gouging and the attorney general’s expanded ability to go after all parts of the supply chain a critical piece of the bill. He said the bill will give Tong the power to declare the state is in an “abnormal economic disruption” to put anti-price gouging measures into effect. This will broaden when those measures can be put in place outside a declared state of emergency.
Maroney also said that the piece of the bill that applies to drones will prohibit drones from being flown near critical infrastructure. He also discussed the portion of the bill that will eliminate junk fees, adding it will also include a measure that allows consumers to cancel subscription streaming services and receive a prorated refund.
Sen. Saud Anwar, D-East Hartford, discussed SB 7, which aims to “protect continued access to health care and the equitable delivery of health care services in the state that may be affected by changes in federal law.”
Anwar, who chairs the Public Health Committee, said the bill, which is a concept draft and does not contain any policy details, said the bill is being called “the shield bill” and will shield the public health of Connecticut residents. Anwar said it is time to stay focused on evidence-based medicine and expressed concern about steps the Trump administration may take.
He stated the law will regulate the amount of fluoride in Connecticut’s water, breaking with the practice of following the federal government’s recommendations. Anwar expressed concern that the Trump administration will remove fluoride from water.
He suggested the bill will establish an emergency fund to help the state deal with public health emergencies, again expressing concern the federal government may not make money available to states in the event of a future emergency.
Anwar said that the “good news” is public health is local and the state has the responsibility and legal capacity to make decisions in a public health emergency. While the federal government can make recommendations, he added, the state makes the decisions. He said it should give Connecticut residents comfort that the state is ready to do this and is taking steps to create an emergency fund in case the federal government doesn’t follow science in a future public health emergency and put finding behind evidence-based measures.
Anwar further added that the bill will also take steps to protect reproductive health. He said the state is looking at ways to import active pharmaceutical ingredients that will protect women’s reproductive rights in the event certain drugs are banned by the Federal Drug Administration.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I wish someone would create and post a diagram so that Connecticut residents might better understand why millionaires are for the people but billionaires are not. We have 15 billionaires in Connecticut. Are we supposed to hate them? California and New York must loathe their billionaires because they have the most in the country. It’s just kind of strange. Nearly 10% of households in Connecticut have at least one millionaire living in it. The highest concentration of wealth is in lower Fairfield County where Lamont lives, the suburbs of Hartford and New Haven, and coastal towns like Waterford where Attorney General Tong’s parents recently purchased their $2 million beachfront estate. Bob Duff is a Millionaire. He made his fortune by selling luxury real estate to both millionaires and billionaires. But apparently Bob and his caucus are “of the people” and “for the people” while the other the caucus is “of billionaires” and “for billionaires.” Okay. I did not know that. Thanks for the insight, Bob.
Is Bob’s caucus the same as Attorney General Tong’s caucus? Is Lamont’s caucus the same as Bob’s caucus? What does that mean exactly? Because after the opening of the 2025 Legislative Session, Lamont went on WTNH 8 and drew a clear portrait of the scenario where he stands up and fights Trump on any immigration-related executive orders. “When they come and pull some 60 year old dreamer out of a classroom at Guilford High School, that’s when I take a stand [paraphrased off the top of my head but it’s close]. For Attorney General Tong, it’s personal. I get it. Tong is a millionaire. Tong’s parents are millionaires. Tong and his parents own real estate worth millions of dollars and live amongst the wealthiest 1% in Connecticut. Tong is exceptionally passionate about this fight and has made it abundantly clear this fight, the one which affects him personally, is the fight that will take precedence over all other fights. Again, I get it. But is this fight which takes precedence over all other fights for his caucus? Maybe it is. If it is, then he’s doing his job, and his caucus should be proud.
Lamont is not running another term. He pulled the baton out of his baton bag months ago and extended it to Tong. Tong has a solid grip on the other end of that thing. Look closely. Lamont’s grip is loose–he’s letting go.
Maybe while the Senate takes up price gouging in all levels of the Health Care field , they may turn their attention to make it illegal for a, for profit entity to such as Prospect to buy anny hospital or healthcare organization. So that aan organization such as ECHN will never again be pillaged and used to profit a California company.
Legislative leaders in Connecticut should be returning widely reported massive surplus to Connecticut taxpayers. We pay too much and receive too little in the land of steady habits.