(The Center Square) – The Nevada Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor debated Assembly Bill 44, which seeks to take extra steps against price gouging in the state.
This bill passed the Nevada Assembly 24-18 in April.
AB 44 would amend Nevada’s Unfair Trade Practice Act to outlaw the manipulation of prices of essential goods or services.
The bill says people manipulate prices when they engage in deceptive trade practices that do not reflect supply and demand. AB 44 also says price manipulation happens if the cost of an item goes up in one year more than the average increase over the past five years.
This rule would not apply to conduct by state and federal agencies.
According to AB 44, food, water, clothes, footwear, medical products, housing, internet access and ground transportation are considered essential items.
If found guilty of violating this law, people could be charged with a felony.
This bill was introduced on behalf of Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford.
At Monday’s committee hearing, Ford spoke in favor of this bill, saying it is needed to help Nevadans afford the cost of essential goods. He attributed this to the state’s high unemployment rate, the number of Medicaid recipients and potential cuts to social safety nets.
“Nevada has the unfortunate distinction of having the worst unemployment rate in the nation,” Ford said.
He added that, at the end of 2024, almost 25% of Nevadans were enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program.
Nevada could lose almost $2 billion in federal Medicaid funding if Congress reduces its Medicaid spending, Ford said
This cut would put people’s health and financial livelihoods at risk, the attorney general said.
He noted cheaters and scammers will try to take advantage of people facing challenging economic situations during difficult times.
AB 44 would close loopholes that allow these people to take advantage of others, Ford said.
“No matter where you live in Nevada, we all share the same vulnerabilities. I want to ensure, as your attorney general, that these consumers are protected in the marketplace,” he explained.
Ford said the cost of essential goods listed in AB 44 should not be a barrier to access for Nevadans.
“This bill addresses fraudulent and deceptive manipulation of the market by increasing prices to the detriment of Nevadans,” he said.
But the legislation doesn’t prevent companies from setting prices that reflect supply and demand principles, the attorney general said.
Businesses will not be punished for reacting to economic factors such as inflation, supply chain shortages or increasing operational costs, Ford said.
The Unfair Trade Practice Act, which is amended by AB 44, attempts to “promote fair competition,” he said.
Ford called AB 44 a “price-fixing bill” rather than a “price gouging bill.”
But the Vegas Chamber disagrees with the bill’s approach, said Paul Moradkhan, the Chamber’s senior vice president of government affairs.
The Las Vegas organization believes this bill doesn’t address the concerns business owners have shared with Ford, Moradkhan told the Senate committee Monday.
He added that the Vegas Chamber thinks AB 44 doesn’t consider supply and demand factors.
He specifically described the five-year price clause as problematic because it would be “troublesome in its approach and application if it becomes law.”
“The Chamber thinks this section of the bill will result in businesses being fearful at making legitimate pricing adjustments,” Moradkhan said.
Furthermore, he said the Chamber’s members will fear modifying prices because they fear legal action.
Moradkhan said the definitions of essential goods and services were broad.
The Chamber believes AB 44 doesn’t consider actual economic principles, Moradkhan said. He added that this bill would hurt Nevada businesses and families.
