►
From YouTube: 4/30/2021 - Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
Hi
good
afternoon,
everyone-
sorry
that
was
a
very
loud
gavel
in
I
wanted
to
make
sure
everyone
knew
we
were
ready
to
start
good
afternoon
committee
members
welcome
those
listening
in
over
the
internet
and
on
zoom
welcome
to
the
assembly
committee
on
commerce
and
labor.
Madam
secretary,
please
call
the
role.
A
Madam
secretary,
please
mark
those
members
not
present,
please
mark
them
absent,
excuse
and
please
mark
them
present
when
they
arrive
members.
We
have
a
short
agenda
today.
We
have
three
bills
for
hearing
and
one
bill
for
work
session,
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
move
right
into
the
bill
hearing
portion
of
our
meeting
today-
and
I
see
that
we
have
our
first
presenter
here.
So
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
on
senaville
260,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
internet
privacy,
a
majority
leader
canazarro
when
you're
ready
the
floor
is
yours.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
members
of
the
senate.
Excuse
me,
assembly
commerce
and
labor
committee.
My
name
is
nicole
cannizzaro.
I
currently
serve
as
a
senator
from
senate
district
6,
which
is
located
in
the
northwest
portion
of
the
las
vegas
valley,
and
I'm
pleased
to
be
here
today
with
you
to
introduce
senate
bill
260,
which
proposes
to
expand
statutory
prohibitions
of
the
sale
of
certain
personally
identifiable
information
of
a
consumer.
C
Along
with
me,
madam
chair,
I
do
have
the
joining
us
via
zoom,
matt
robinson,
who
would
like
to
give
some
comments
on
the
background
of
the
bill,
and
then
the
two
of
us
would
be
able
to
answer
any
questions
once
we're
done
with
the
presentation.
C
These
data
brokers
do
not
have
a
direct
relationship
with
the
consumers
whose
data
they
have
collected,
so
most
people
are
not
even
aware
of
what
is
happening.
Unfortunately,
consumer
data
is
also
an
extremely
lucrative
lucrative
industry.
According
to
techcrunch
data,
brokering
is
a
200
billion
dollar
industry.
C
Over
time
a
single
email
address
can
be
worth
an
average
of
89,
and
this
value
can
more
than
double.
If
a
person
is
a
frequent
traveler,
because
it
is
such
a
lucrative
business,
there
are
over
4
000
data
and
information
broker.
Companies
worldwide,
most
well-known
data
brokers
do
offer
an
opt-out
option
for
people
to
remove
part
or
all
of
their
data
from
being
published,
while
others
may
try
to
hide
it
deep
in
their
privacy
policy
or
not
post
an
option
at
all.
C
That
is
why
it
is
so
important
to
do
everything
within
our
power
to
limit
the
reach
of
those
data
broker
websites
where
it
is
not
wanted.
During
the
2019
legislative
session,
the
legislature
enacted
senate
bill
220
to
prohibit
an
operator
of
a
website
or
online
service
from
selling
certain
personal
identifiable
information
collected
from
a
consumer.
C
If
a
consumer
submits
a
verified
request
to
the
operator
directing
the
operator
not
to
sell
such
information,
I
brought
fourth
senate
bill
220
after
my
constituents
had
expressed
some
of
those
same
concerns
about
the
privacy
of
their
personal
identifiable
information
and
now
senate.
Bill
260
takes
the
next
step
in
protecting
our
constituent's
personal
information.
C
It
prohibits
a
data
broker
from
selling
that
personal
identifiable
information.
If
a
consumer
submits
a
verified
request
to
the
data
broker
directing
them
not
to
sell
such
information,
I
would
like
to
walk
the
committee.
Just
briefly,
through
the
sections
of
the
bill,
section
1.5
exempts
fair
credit,
reporting
and
fraud
prevention
organizations
publicly
available
information
and
information
and
data
process
pursuant
to
the
federal
driver's
privacy
prevention
act
of
1994
from
the
provisions
of
this
bill,
and
quite
simply
the
reason
for
that.
Those
exclusions
are
that
that
data
is
already
covered
under
those
particular
provisions.
C
Section
3
allows
the
data
broker
to
extend
the
period
to
respond
to
a
consumer
by
30
days.
If
the
broker
determines
that
an
extension
is
reasonably
necessary,
but
the
data
broker
is
required
to
notify
the
consumer
of
the
extension
section.
10
provides
that
if
an
operator
of
a
website
fails
to
make
public
makes
available
to
consumers
a
notice
regarding
collected
covered
information,
they
may
remedy
such
a
failure
within
30
days
after
being
informed
informed
and
only
if
it
is
their
first
time
failing
to
comply
with
those
requirements.
C
Section
11
makes
it
an
unlawful
act
if
the
operator
of
a
website
continues
not
to
provide
the
notice
regarding
collected
information
within
30
days
and
if
they
knowingly
fail
to
comply
with
the
requirement
of
such
notice.
Section
10
authorizes
the
attorney
general
to
seek
an
injunction
or
a
civil
penalty
against
a
data
broker
who
violates
these
provisions.
C
If
the
attorney
general
has
reason
to
believe
that
that
data
broker
has
violated
or
is
violating
the
provisions
of
section
3
and
they
may
institute
an
appropriate
legal
proceeding,
section
12
also
provides
that
a
district
court
that
finds
the
data
broker
has
violated
section.
3
of
this
act
may
issue
a
temporary
or
permanent
injunction
or
impose
a
civil
penalty.
C
We
also
submitted
to
this
committee
two
amendments
that
were
worked
out.
Yes,
as
of
late
yesterday.
I
think
we're
still
making
sure
that
the
language
accomplishes
what
we
are
trying
to
accomplish.
With
those
two
amendments.
C
You
will
see
one
that
I
believe
was
submitted
by
mr
robinson,
then
one
that
was
submitted
on
behalf
of
myself,
and
these
came
from
concerns
after
various
stakeholder
group
meetings
and
so
the
first
amendment
that
you
that
you
will
see
that
has
to
deal
with
some
of
the
telecom
interest
industries
that
we
had
been
speaking
to
clarifies
the
definition
of
a
data
broker.
C
There's
an
amendment
to
section
4.
That
is
a
technical
correction.
To
avoid
to
avoid
confusion
between
the
data
broker,
provisions
of
this
bill
and
what
currently
exists
for
operators
and
then
the
amendments
to
sections
10,
11
and
12
further
align
the
intent
on
clarifying
the
right
to
cure
provisions.
C
They
extend
the
application
of
the
cure
provision
to
data
brokers
and
they
basically
make
sure
that
we're
providing
those
that
appropriate
notice,
and
so
the
attorney
general
can
actually
implement
those
there's
also
an
amendment
that
we
have
submitted
for
your
consideration
as
well
that
we,
that
is
friendly,
that
includes
in
the
exemptions,
information
that
is
otherwise
covered
by
the
fair
credit
reporting
act
and
then
also
the
gram
leach
bliley
act
that
also
complies
with
how
this
law
is
structured
for
operators
as
a
result
of
senate
bill
220
from
last
session,
because
those
types
of
data
and
information
already
regulated
under
those
provisions.
A
A
Okay,
let's
see
it
looks
like
we
have
I.t
working
on
it.
One.
A
A
Okay,
member
standardies,
mr
robinson,
we
are
looks
like
our
bps
and
it
are
working
on
it.
So
hopefully
we
get
you
up
and
running
there.
We
go
okay.
D
A
F
Hey
the
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
for
taking
the
time
to
hear
us
out
today.
My
name
is
matt
robinson,
I'm,
the
director
of
public
affairs
at
our
genome
partners,
and
I'm
here
today
on
behalf
of
our
client
nevadans
for
data
privacy.
I'll
be
very
brief.
The
the
majority
leader
did
a
great
job
of
walking
through
the
the
sections
of
the
bill.
F
Just
a
bit
of
background
on
this,
the
the
conversation
and
work
on
on
this
started
a
couple
of
years
ago
in
the
2019
session,
senator
senator
canezaro
alluded
to
with
sb220
and-
and
we
looked
at
that
as
a
great
first
step
towards
achieving
security
for
nevadans
data
and
their
personal
information.
F
As
with
anything
over
the
course
of
a
couple
of
years
of
being
implemented,
we
went
through
and
noticed
some
ways
that
we
might
be
able
to
strengthen
this
and
and
do
it
in
a
way
that
was
good
for
everyone,
and
so
so
that's
what
you
see
in
front
of
you
today
in
the
form
of
sb
260..
F
There
are
really
three
main
goals
here.
The
first
one
was
to
define
data
brokers
and
bring
them
into
the
fold
and
under
the
scope
of
this
bill,
current
statute
only
covers
entities
that
collect
your
data
or
info
through
a
website
or
a
web
page
and
inadvertently
omitted
those
that
go
out
and
purchase
your
data
often
wholesale.
They
will
then
go
sell
it
to
other
folks
who
may
sell
it
to
other
people
or
use
it
to
target
you
for
specific
products
or
services.
F
So
we
thought
it
was
important
that
everyone
be
treated
the
same
in
un
under
the
eyes
of
the
law
in
this.
The
second
thing
that
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
we're
expanding
and
clarifying
the
definition
of
sale
again
in
current
statute.
F
Resale
is
the
condition
of
qualification
here
so
that
first
initial
sale
of
data
or
exchange
of
data
is
is
not
currently
covered.
Your
data
is
your
data
and
a
sale
or
transmission
of
that
is
a
sailor
transmission
of
that.
So
we
believe
that
again
that
first
sale
should
be
included
in
this
provision
as
well.
F
And
lastly,
there
is
a
right
to
cure
period
in
current
statute
and
it's
30
days,
and
we
think
that's
a
good
thing.
People
make
mistakes.
Companies
make
mistakes,
it's
it's.
The
nature
of
business
is
what
we
heard
from
from
some
of
our
stakeholders.
Specifically,
a
group
called
the
electronic
frontier
foundation
is.
It
appears
that
some
entities
and
operators
were
perhaps
taking
advantage
of
this
and
it
wasn't
having
the
desired
effect
as
a
deterrent,
but
possibly
more
of
a
as
a
loophole
to
just
continue
operating.
F
However,
they
have
been
and
not
rectifying
that
behavior.
So
what
we
do
in
sbe
260
is
we
go
through,
and
we
clarify
that
you
know
you're
afforded
this
right
to
cure
period
once
and
moving
forward
you,
you
will
be
expected
to
operate
in
compliance
just
and
again
I'll,
be
very
brief
and
I'll
just
kind
of
leave
with
some
parting
words.
I
think
this
is
the
the
second
step
now
down
a
path.
That's
probably
going
to
be
a
fairly
long
conversation.
F
This
is,
this
is
a
hot
issue
right
now
nationally.
You
know
you
have
big
tech
companies
coming
before
congress
to
explain
their
actions
and
the
way
that
they
operate.
You
have
high
profile
as
in
the
equifax
breach.
Recently,
you
know
you
have
a
the
popularity
of
a
movie
on
netflix
called
the
social
dilemma.
F
This
is
a
conversation
that
the
country
is
having
it's
a
conversation
that
that
our
our
citizens
are
having
in
nevada,
and
so
we
expect
this
to
be
again
a
the
second
step
in
a
in
a
long
list
of
things
that
we
can
do
in
nevada
to
help
protect
our
our
consumer's
digital
info.
And
you
know
you
are
your
data,
you
are
your
info,
and
so
this
is
important
work.
F
We
appreciate
the
senator
for
for
going
down
this
path
with
us,
and
we
also
appreciate
that
we
had
a
great
stakeholder
group
and
it
really
was
a
delight
to
work
with
everyone
to
bring
forward
a
bill
that
that
we
think
is
good
for
for
business
and
consumers
alike,
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
and
with
that
I'll
I'll,
I'll,
stop
and
I'll
hand
it
back
to
senator
cannizzaro.
If
she'd
like
to
say
anything
else,.
C
A
G
Thank
you
so
much
for
bringing
this
forward.
I
think
everything
that
mr
robinson
said
concerning
everybody
paying
attention
to
this
and
being
interested
in.
This
is
right
on
so
I
appreciate
it.
I
just
had
a
couple
of
quick
questions
on
section
three,
so
does
each
data
broker
shall
establish
a
designated
request
address?
How
does
somebody
find
that
address.
G
Thank
you
very
much,
it's
good
to
know,
and
then
just
my
second
question
was
same
section,
but
in
subsection
four,
when
they
received
this
letter
and
they
have
60
days
to
respond,
are
during
that
60
days.
Can
your
data
be
sold
or
does
somebody
expect
it
to
to
not
be
sold
the
day
that
they
receive
it.
C
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
nicole
canozzaro
senate
district
six.
You
can
go
directly
to
the
member.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
assemblywoman.
That
is
a
great
question.
It
is
not
delineated
in
the
language
here.
What
we
were
trying
to
do
was
to
make
sure
that
they
had
enough
time
if
they
receive
you
know
a
wide
volume
of
these
particular
requests
that
they
would
have
the
time
to
be
able
to
go
through
them
and
then
figure
out
where
that
data
may
exist
and
make
sure
that
it
was
removed.
C
But
I
don't
think
that
that
is
specifically
addressed
by
this
languages
and
is
a
good
question.
My
anticipation
would
be
that
they
they
likely
would
be
proceeding
as
as
they
ordinarily
would
so.
Somebody's
data
may
be
subject
to
that.
Certainly
wasn't
the
intent,
but
we
wanted
to
be
able
from
the
from
either
the
broker
or
the
or
the
operator
side,
which
is
what
is
in
current
law
to
allow
them
time
to
be
able
to
actually
find
that
data
and
then
and
then
identify
it
as
something
that
couldn't
be
sold.
H
Thank
you,
chair
and
good
to
see
you
again
senator,
so
my
questions
are
kind
of
along
the
same
line
as
my
colleague
I'm
regarding
the
address.
So
that
was
my
first
question
was
where
they
would
find
it,
and
so
is
that
a
physical
address
that
they
would
be
sending
not
an
email
and
then
next
would
be.
H
C
C
They
may
have
a
toll-free
number
that
works
better
than
a
particular
email
address,
and
so
in
that
definition
it
includes
an
electronic
mail
address
the
internet
website
or
our
toll-free
telephone
number
to
submit
that
request,
and
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
that
was
one
of
the
concerns
that
we
had
heard
last
session
with
respect
to
where,
where
that
information
could
be
sent
and
wanted
to
make
sure
that
it
would
accommodate
both
smaller
and
larger
folks,
and
so
that
definition
now,
as
you
can
see
in
section,
seven
is
just
including
data
brokers.
C
So
it'd
be
the
same
for
them.
They
could
do
a
toll-free
telephone
number,
an
electronic
mail
address
or
an
internet
website
for
folks
to
be
able
to
submit
that
and
then
again
the
I
believe
we
left
some
of
the
definitions
of
the
verified
request.
C
A
little
flexible
as
well-
and
you
can
see
that
in
let's
see
here
section,
I
apologize
section,
nine
yeah,
so
the
verified
request
and
what
would
have
to
be
submitted
is
left
pretty
flexible
with
respect
to
that
request,
so
that
it's
not
over
burdensome
for
the
consumer
to
have
to
say.
Well,
I
have
you
know
this
information,
this
information,
this
information.
It
has
to
be
something
that
the
operator
the
data
broker,
could
verify
in
that,
if
you're
sending
it
from
an
email
address,
and
you
give
them
your
name
and
they
have
your
information
and
that's.
C
Why
there's
also
that
flexibility
in
the
time,
as
I
mentioned,
to
one
of
the
previous
questions
for
them
to
be
able
to
respond,
but
we
left
that
flexible
because
we
didn't
want
to
put
in
a
bunch
of
parameters
that
either
would
make
it
complicated
for
the
consumer
to
be
able
to
submit
when
they're
really
just
trying
to
remove
their
information.
It
could
be
as
simple
as
this
is
my
name
and
here's.
C
The
email
address
I've
been
using
to
interact
with
your
your
particular
website
or
your
particular
service,
and
we
also
wanted
it
to
be
something
that,
depending
on
that
particular
data
broker
or
the
operator
as
it
exists
under
current
law,
would
be
able
to.
You
know,
adopt
practices
to
verify
what
that
was,
so
that
is,
it
is
intentionally
left
a
little
flexible.
For
that
reason,.
H
I
Thank
you,
chair
assembly,
woman,
heidi
kasama,
district
2..
Thank
you
senator.
This
is
really
important.
I
know
all
of
our
we're
all
concerned
about
our
privacy.
My
question
is
just
stepping
back
one
step,
so
this
is
how
we're
going
to
send
the
information.
How
do
we
find
all
these
data
brokers?
So
maybe
you
could
give
an
example
of
that.
So
if
I'm
a
consumer-
and
I
want
to
submit
this-
how
do
where
do
I
go?
How
do
I
find
them,
because
I'd
like
to
do
that
now.
C
Nicole
cazarro
said
in
district
six,
and
thank
you
assemblywoman.
I
think
we
all.
I
think
we
all
do
and
that's
that's
sort
of
the
reason
for
bringing
the
bill,
and
so
you
know
I
what
we've
put
into
the
bill
are
obviously
the
parameters
with
respect
to
the
verified
request
address
and
for
people
to
be
able
to
submit
that.
I
am,
I
think,
it's
a
good
question
of
how
do
you
know
who
exactly
is
selling
your
data?
C
Obviously,
some
of
that
is
on
the
part
of
the
consumer
to
when
you're,
interacting
with
a
website
or
with
or
with
some
place
that
you
may
be
providing
personal
identifiable
information
to
be
able
to
to
go
ahead
and
opt
out
that
way.
I
don't
know
if
mr
robinson
has
any
further
highlights
that
he
might
be
able
to
put
on
that
particular
question.
Some
of
this
is
on
part
of
the
consumer
to
make
sure
they're
protecting
their
information.
C
C
F
Matt
robinson
with
our
general
partners
for
the
record,
so
it
that's
an
interesting
question
and
it's
part
of
the
crux
of
this
right
that
this
is
a
it's
such
a
pervasive
issue
and
and
people
are
so
digitally
active
nowadays,
it
really
is
difficult
to
pinpoint,
especially
when
you're
talking
about
operators
in
general
data
brokers
are
a
little
bit
different.
They're
they're,
lead
generators,
they're
background
check
websites,
it's
they're
kind
of
a
different
function
than
generally
who
people
interact
with
on
a
daily
basis.
F
So
the
short
answer
is
it's
very
difficult
to
find
out
if
a
data
broker
has
your
actual
data,
other
states
and
as
we
said,
this
is
a
you
know,
a
first
or
second
step
down
a
somewhat
long
path
to
address
these
issues,
but
some
states
have
actually
implemented
data
broker
registries.
I
believe
it's
vermont
and
california
that
have
those,
and
so
there
is
a
you
know,
a
website
that
that
consumers
can
go
to
and
see.
F
If
you
know,
if
they've
interacted
with
any
of
those
companies
or
they
could
go
and
theoretically
just
send
blanket
requests
to
all
of
them.
That
says:
hey.
Should
you
ever
come
across?
My
data,
you
know,
please,
please,
don't
disclose
it
or
sell
it.
So
I
think
that's
something
that
we're
going
to
have
to
look
at
addressing
down
the
road.
F
J
Thank
you,
chair
senator.
I
hope
this
is
a
simple
question,
because
I'm
sort
of
building
upon
what
my
colleague
to
my
left
had
to
say
is:
how
quickly
can
we
enact
this,
but
the
other
side
of
it
is
have
any
of
the
data
brokers,
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
had
any
pushback
on
enacting
the
protections
force.
There
is
no
date
on
the
bill
and
acting
date,
so
it
goes
to
the
automatic
date
of
october.
J
C
Nicole
candacero
senate
district
six-
that
is
a
great
question
that
I
actually
have
not
asked
him.
I
am
I'm
sure
that
you
know
one
of
the.
A
A
I
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
committee
members,
matt
walker
on
behalf
of
at
t
att
had,
along
with
other
wireless
carriers,
had
some
initial
concerns
with
the
consistency
of
the
definition
of
data
broker
in
this
bill.
After
many
many
hours
of
great
conversation
with
senator
cannizzaro
and
other
stakeholders,
we've
reached
a
consensus
amendment
that
you'll
find
on
nellis.
I
A
E
E
A
B
B
D
Good
afternoon,
chair
hadiki
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
jimmy
lau,
first
name
j-I-m-m-y
last
name
l-a-u
with
ferrari
public
affairs
representing
verizon.
We
would
like
to
echo
the
sentiments
of
our
telecom
colleagues
and
thank
majority
leader
canazarro
for
working
with
us
on
the
proposed
amendment
on
nellis,
especially
regarding
the
definition
of
data
broker.
A
B
B
K
Good
afternoon
sharon
members,
my
name
is
cameron,
dimitri
demetrius
spelled
d-e-m-e-t-r-e,
I'm
the
executive
director
at
technet
in
techno,
it's
the
national
bipartisan
network
of
tech,
ceos
and
senior
executives.
It
promotes
the
growth
of
the
innovation
economy
and
represents
over
85
companies
and
3.5
million
customers.
K
I've
you
know
heard
I
haven't
seen
the
latest
of
the
amendments
I'd
like
to
review
those
before
I
make
my
comments
as
it
relates
to
the
data
privacy
broker
component.
But
while
we
appreciate
the
recent
inclusion
of
the
drivers,
privacy
protection
act,
exemption
technet
respect.
We
must
continue
to
take
an
oppose
unless
amended
position
on
sb
260.,
while
we
are
still
seeking
additional
federal
exemptions
included
in
other
privacy
laws,
including
the
fair
credit
reporting
act
and
the
graham
leach
bliley
act
from
the
previous
stakeholder
meetings.
K
K
Non-Financial
institutions
have
data
that
is
subject
to
the
requirements
of
glba
and
that
they
receive
the
data
from
a
financial
institution
pursuant
to
certain
delineated
uses
that
they
pass
on
for
uses
expressly
authorized
by
the
glba
and,
additionally,
we're
seeking
additional
clarity
on
the
definition
of
data
broker.
It
sounds
like
there's
conversations
already
that
have
been
productive
in
this
rate,
but
technet
advocates
for
a
similar
data
broker
definition
to
vermont
in
order
to
avoid
a
patchwork
of
definitions,
considered
a
data
broker
in
the
eyes
of
state
legislatures.
K
Lastly,
tekken
is
seeking
a
right
to
cure
process
consistent
with
other
states
that
provides
for
the
ability
to
remove
where
a
previous
violation
has
occurred,
the
right
to
cure
benefits
consumers
by
incentivizing
companies
to
be
forthright
and
identify
potential
problems.
For
these
reasons,
we
are
opposed
to
this
measure.
Consideration.
A
B
L
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
shareholder
game
members,
mackenzie
warren
with
mcdonald
toronto.
On
behalf
of
the
consumer
data
industry
association,
we
want
to
recognize
the
sponsor
majority
leader,
kane
azaro,
for
meeting
with
tdia
several
times
and
just
for
the
general
direction
of
the
amendment.
Thus
far,
these
amendments
really
help
keep
a
clear
line
between
what's
federally
regulated
and
what's
highly
regulated
by
that
framework
and
then
what's
regulated
by
the
state,
just
a
quick
not
again
to
the
senator
and
to
mr
robinson,
with
argentine
for
being
so
responsive.
L
B
D
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
dylan
keith
d
y
l
k
k-e-I-g-h
policy
analyst
for
the
vegas
chamber.
I
wanted
to
thank
the
senate
majority
leader
for
meeting
with
stakeholders
and
the
chamber
to
discuss
the
intent
of
the
bill
and
the
policy
issue
at
hand
based
on
the
feedback
that
we
received
from
our
members.
The
vegas
chamber
is
neutral
on
the
revised
version
of
sb260.
D
A
Time:
okay,
thank
you
majority,
leader
cannizzaro.
Would
you
like
to
give
any
closing
remarks?
Okay,
with
that,
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
2-6-0
next
on
our
agenda
is
senate
bill
290..
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
290,
which
enacts
provisions
relating
to
prescription
drugs
for
the
treatment
of
cancer
senator
lang.
Thank
you
for
joining
us.
Welcome
to
the
commerce
and
labor
committee
when
you're
ready
the
floor
is
yours.
Thank
you.
So
much.
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Madam
vice
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
I'm
roberta
lang
representing
senate
district
7
in
clark
county.
I
am
pleased
to
present
senate
bill
290
in
its
second
reprint,
which
seeks
to
allow
diagnosed
patients
with
stage
3
or
4
cancer
to
be
granted
an
exception
to
the
step
therapy
protocols.
M
Cancer
is
the
second
leading
cause
of
death
in
nevada
and
in
the
united
states.
The
incidence
of
cancer
in
nevada
is
exacerbated
by
lifestyles
of
the
state's
population.
According
to
the
american
cancer
society,
approximately
16
970
new
cancer
cases
will
be
diagnosed
in
nevada.
This
year
alone,
approximately
5
410
cancer
deaths
will
occur
in
this
state
in
the
year
of
2021.
M
Individuals
who
have
cancer
face
tremendous
financial
burdens
to
threat
to
to
treat
the
disease.
If
they
have
health
insurance,
they
may
still
find
themselves
owing
thousands
of
dollars
to
health
care
practitioners
and
facilities.
Individuals
without
health
insurance
face
an
additional
burden
of
not
being
treated
adequately
for
their
disease
because
of
their
lack
of
insurance.
M
In
fact,
the
united
health
foundation
reports
15
percent
of
our
state's
population,
avoid
seeking
care
due
to
costs
health
insurers
provide
coverage
for
health
related
services,
including
prescription
drugs,
but
patients
also
must
follow
certain
utilization
management
processes
before
coverage
of
service
begins.
These
practices
are
currently
known
as
step
therapy
or
fail.
First
protocols,
generally
health
insurers
use
step
therapy
to
lower
costs,
while
healthcare
practitioners
tend
to
prescribe
the
most
effective
treatment
for
their
patients,
but
may
not
place
a
priority
on
prescribing
low-cost
treatments.
M
M
Too
many
of
our
state's
residents
will
unfortunately
face
a
cancer
diagnosis
and
advocates
requested
that
the
legislature
remove
any
unnecessary
barriers
to
the
cancer
drugs
that
they
need
chair
houdiki.
If,
with
your
permission,
I
will
do
a
brief
bill
summary
senate
bill
290
requires
certain
health
insurers
to
grant
an
exemption
of
its
step
therapy
protocol
upon
a
receipt
of
a
complete
application
from
an
insured
or
intending
practitioner
of
the
insured
who's
been
diagnosed
with
stage
3
or
4
cancer.
M
That
includes
supporting
clinical
rationale
and
documentation
if
a
treatment
under
the
step
therapy
has
not
been
effective
at
treating
cancer
symptoms
of
the
insured
or
if
the
delay
of
treatment
would
have
severe
or
irreversible
consequences
for
the
insured
and
the
treatment
under
the
step.
Therapy
is
not
reasonably
expected
to
be
effective
or
a
treatment
under
the
step.
M
Commissioner,
health
insurance
must
respond
to
a
health
step
therapy
exemption
request
within
72
hours
of
the
request.
A
health
insurer
is
required
to
expand
as
expeditiously
as
necessary.
If
the
attending
practitioner
determines
that
a
step
therapy
process
may
seriously
jeopardize
the
life
or
health
of
the
insured
health
insurers
may
request.
M
As
supporting
documentation,
insurance,
medical
records
demonstrating
that
the
insured
has
tried
other
drugs,
including
in
the
step
therapy
protocol
without
success,
or
demonstrates
that
the
insured
has
taken
the
requested
drug
for
a
clinically
appropriate
amount
of
time
to
establish
stability
in
the
relationship
with
cancer,
health,
insurers
are
required
to
provide
coverage
for
the
requested
prescription
drug.
In
accordance
with
the
terms
of
the
applicable
health
insurance
policy.
M
The
insurer
may
limit
the
coverage
to
one
week's
supply,
but
must
cover
the
drug
for
as
long
as
necessary
to
treat
the
insurer.
If
the
attending
practitioner
determines
after
one
week
that
that
drug
is
effective,
an
insurer
may
conduct
a
review
not
more
frequently
than
once
a
quarter
in
accordance
with
available
medical
evidence
to
determine
whether
the
drug
remains
necessary
to
treat
the
insured
for
the
cancer
symptoms.
M
Health
insurance
insurers
are
also
required
to
post
an
easily
accessible
location
on
their
internet
website,
maintained
by
the
insurer,
a
form
requesting
an
exemption
from
a
step
therapy
protocol
and
finally,
a
health
insurance
policy
issued
or
renewed
honor
or
after
january.
1
of
2022
must
include
the
coverage
required
by
this
bill
and
any
provision
of
the
policy
that
conflicts
it
is
void.
M
M
I
urge
your
support
and
with
that
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions,
but
before
I
do
that,
let
me
say
I
have
two
amendments
that
are
going
to
be
posted.
The
first
one
is
to
change
the
date
that
I
mentioned.
They
put
the
default
date
in
the
bill
when
we
had
asked
for
january
1
2022,
so
that
has
to
be
amended
in
the
bill
and
then
also
in
section
one
number
five.
M
You
will
see
that
on
the
review
committee
it
says
that
they
have
to
provide
the
names
and
the
occupation
of
the
people
on
the
review
committee.
In
talking
with
many
people
in
the
medical
field,
putting
someone's
name
on
there
can
cause
an
adverse
problem
for
doctors
and
people
in
the
medical
position.
If
the
person
that
put
the
application
in
is
denied,
and
so
we're
going
to
remove
the
names
part
just
the
names
and
keep
the
the
their
what
their
where
they
practice
will
still
stay
in
the
bill,
thank
you.
A
N
And-
and
thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
senator
for
for
walking
through
the
bill
so
well
for
us.
I
do
appreciate
that
we're
looking
at
a
I'm
looking
at
a
second
reprint.
Unfortunately,
I
did
not
have
the
opportunity
to
look
at
the
original
and
then
the
first
reprint,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
you
know,
compare
silos
next
to
each
other.
So
originally
this
bill
covered
everyone,
and
then
it
was
amended
to
take
pebb
out.
M
The
reason
medicaid
was
removed
because
our
state
currently
is
in
a
situation
where
that
would
have
put
a
fiscal
note
on
the
bill
that
would
have
possibly
caused
the
bill
not
to
pass,
and
we
felt
it
was
more
important
that
we
get
this
bill
passed
out
of
committee
and
then
or
out
of
the
legislature,
get
it
into
law
and
in
two
years
when
I
believe
the
state
will
be
in
a
better
financial
position.
That
will
be
my
first
priority.
N
N
My
and
I'm
not
going
to
turn
this
into
a
ways
and
means
meeting,
but
this
does
have
a
fiscal
note
with
a
second
reprint.
Apparently
the
fiscal
note
was
not
there
and
then
back
because
of
the
peb
change.
So
it
currently
does
have
a
fiscal
note
of
over
seven
hundred
and
thirteen
thousand
dollars
for
pebb,
which
I'm
not
sure
is
entirely
accurate
because
they
act
as
their
third
party
manager
to
come
up
with
the
number.
N
So
I
think
we
would
need
to
investigate
that
a
little
bit
deeper
to
make
sure,
but
if
it
comes
down
to
some
of
the
cost
of
cancer
treatments,
713
dollars
isn't
a
whole
lot
of
money
when
you
start
comparing
them
to
cancer
drugs,
but
I
think
there
might
be
someone
from
medicaid
available.
Madam
chair,
I
I
would
like
to
get
a
statement
from
them.
If
it's,
if
it's
possible,
it
seems
to
me
as
though,
with
the
way
this
bill
is
is
drafted.
N
M
And
madam
vice
chair,
we
have
removed
the
language
about
the
oncologist,
because
oncologists
aren't
always
available
to
sit
on
these
committees
for
review.
So
in
section
it
is
a
registered
nurse
or
pharmacist,
and
that
would
be
in
section
six,
the
letters
one
or
the
number
one
and
then
c.
A
K
Sure
I
I
certainly
can
thank
you,
madam
chair
and
beth
slamwitz
senior
policy
advisor
on
pharmacy
for
the
department
of
health
and
human
services
for
the
record,
and
thank
you
vice
chair
carlton
for
the
question,
and
so
just
for
clarification
purposes.
K
Step
therapy
is
allowed
in
medicaid,
but
currently
fee
for
service.
Medicaid
does
not
utilize
step
therapy
at
all,
but
I
do
believe
that
the
managed
care
organizations
do
utilize
step
therapy
as
a
utilization
tool
for
their
formularies
and
prefer
drug
lists.
It's
also
referred
to
as
a
fail
first
type
of
policy
or
protocol.
K
N
K
The
oncology
treatments
that
they
have
any
kind
of
step
therapy
applied
to
and
what
that
looks
like
from
a
utilization
standpoint
that
if
they
then
have
to
now
not
allow
that
step
therapy
to
happen
or
to
allow
a
a
member
to
be
able
to
request
an
exemption,
how
that
would
fiscally
impact
their
plan,
which
then
would,
of
course,
trickle
back
to
an
expense
to
the
state
from
the
drug
cost
standpoint.
N
And
then
the
match
would
be
dependent
upon
the
medicaid
recipient,
whether
it's
the
standard
f
map
or
the
the
newly
eligible,
whichever
category
they
would
fall
in
if
they
were
the
newly
eligible,
it's
90
cents
on
the
dollar.
So
it's
just
going
to
cost
the
state
10
cents
on
the
dollar,
but
on
the
other
it's
about
68,
so
it
would
cost
us,
maybe
30
some
cents
per
dollar
on
on
those
drugs.
N
So
if
I
could,
please
request
trying
to
get
some
information
if
we
can,
because
I
I
feel
very
strongly
that
a
cancer
patient
is
a
cancer
patient
and
since
we've
already
got
one
fiscal
note
on
this
thing
we
might
as
well
just
if
you're
going
to
put
one
foot
in
the
water
you
might
as
well
just
jump
in
and
go
from
there.
So
thank
you
very
much
if
you
could
help
us
with
that,
we
would
appreciate
it.
J
Thank
you
chair.
I
think
my
question
is
a
whole
lot
easier
and
less
complicated
less
expensive
too,
but
it
is
a
concern
at
several
places
in
the
bill.
It
talks
about
the
advocate
for
the
insured,
and
I
just
I
assume
that's
a
family,
member
or
social
worker,
but
nowhere
does
it
define
how
you
identify
the
advocate
and
I'm
trying
to
give
you
the
position
of
two
family
members
that
maybe
don't
see
different,
see
it
differently
than
the
patient
does.
How
do
we
identify?
Who
is
the
true
representative,
or
that
advocate.
M
J
H
Thank
you
for
the
question
and
I
had
the
privilege
of
serving
on
that
interim
prescription
drug
committee,
and
this
was
the
one
of
the
the
items
we
discussed.
That
I
thought
was
a
really
good
idea,
especially
when
you're
dealing
with
illnesses
such
as
cancer,
that
you
know
the
more
expensive
medications
could
help
someone
and
to
have
to
go
through
all
the
steps
to
get
there
when
a
delay
in
treatment
can
sometimes
mean
you
know,
be
the
matter
of
someone
surviving
or
not.
So
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
H
I
just
had
a
question
on
page
six,
where
it
talks
about
the
insurer
may
initially
limit
the
coverage
to
a
one-week
supply
of
the
drug,
and
then
the
practitioner
would
determine
if
it
was
effective.
I
was
just
wondering
one
week
seems
short:
is
that
a
long
enough
time
to
determine?
M
Of
time,
thank
you
assemblywoman
hardy,
so
this
arose
because
many
of
you
may
remember
peggy
pierce,
who
was
an
elected
official
in
the
legislature.
She
had
cancer
and
she
got
medicine
and
the
medicine
you're
right,
it's
very
expensive
and
she
took
the
medicine
for
less
than
a
week
and
had
a
horrific
reaction
to
it.
And
then
the
medicine
is
like
a
thousand
dollars
a
pill
right,
and
so
it's
thirty
thousand
dollars
a
month.
M
She
had
this
horrific
reaction,
couldn't
take
the
medicine
and
now
the
insured
insurance
company
had
just
covered
that
drug
and
she
can't
take
27
pills
right,
and
so
it
was
a
huge
amount.
So
in
talking
with
the
insurance
companies
that
they
felt
that
that
if
it
was
a
week
and
people
and
and
there
could
be
an
appeal
process
that
there's
always
an
appeal
process
in
the
insurance
in
people's
insurance,
but
if
they
did
one
week,
that
would
be
enough
time
to
find
out
if
they
were
gonna
have
a
reaction
right
away
to
it.
M
And
then,
if
they
did,
there
would
be
not
the
huge
loss
of
the
coverage
of
the
medicine
and
then
after
that
first
week
they
could
go
and
get
their
prescriptions
regularly.
So
it's
only
for
that
first
initial
time
that
they're
taking
the
medicine.
H
M
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Is
the
woman
roberta
lying
state
senate
7
for
the
record?
Yes,
they
could.
They
could
work
with
the
doctor
and
go
to
it
and
the
insurance
company
to
go
to
a
different
medication,
because
they've
already
been
approved
through
to
through
the
exemption
of
the
step
therapy
program.
E
M
A
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you
for
the
question
assembly
members
any
other
questions.
Before
we
go
to
testimony
okay,
seeing
none.
I
am
going
to
move
us
into
testimony
and
support.
Is
there
anyone
in
carson
city
wishing
to
testify
in
support
okay,
seeing
no
one
signed
in
on
zoom
bps?
Could
we
please
check
the
telephone
line.
B
D
B
B
B
This
is
the
first
step
forward
in
addressing
step
therapy
for
our
cancer
patients,
there's
very
rarely
a
one-size-fits-all
in
cancer
treatment
and
care,
and
so
we're
really
excited
that
this
still
is
a
start
in
mitigating
the
potential
negative
impacts
of
step
therapy
for
unco
or
oncology
patients.
Thank
you
so
much.
A
B
B
Should
I
go
ahead
and
move
forward
and
take
that
college
chair?
Yes,.
B
B
B
However,
the
latest
amendment
amendment
442,
removes
this
language
and
therefore
pad
has
submitted
a
new
fiscal
note
to
reflect
this.
In
addition
to
the
fiscal
impact,
pep
does
have
some
concerns
with
the
exam,
with
the
exception
granting
require
exception.
Granting
requirement.
I'm
sorry
currently
pablo
relies
on
our
pharmacy
benefit
manager
to
review
these
types
of
cases.
B
Using
the
step
therapy
program,
the
pbm
uses
an
independent
team
of
physicians
and
pharmacists
to
make
formulary
decisions
using
fda,
approved
guidelines
and
clinical
justifications,
and
although
pep
has
chosen
to
implement
step
therapy,
the
goal
of
step
therapy
is
not
to
stop
the
member
from
taking
the
right
therapy,
especially
for
cancer
within
the
pbm
step
therapy
processes.
There's
an
exception.
N
And
thank
you
and
miss
rich.
Thank
thank
you
very
much
for
for
calling
in
and
and
walking
us
through
this
so
because
there
have
been
a
number
of
changes.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
I
understand
it
so,
with
the
exception
language,
even
with
some
of
the
changes
that
have
been
made
because
the
pbm
actually
manages
this
for
you,
I
don't
think
I
quite
caught
exactly
what
the
issue
is,
so
that
we
know
what
we
need
to
fix.
B
So
sure,
thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
carlton.
Yes,
the
the
concern
here
is
that
in
laura
rich
for
the
record,
the
concern
here
is
that
the
except
the
exemption
process
or
the
exception
process
it
looks
like
because
the
pbm
does
that
for
us
today
already
through
step
therapy.
It
implements
a
separate
process
and
it
it
appears
from
the
way
that
our
staff
has
interpreted
the
language.
B
That
pebb
would
then
make
that
final
final
decision
as
to
whether
or
not
this
is
that
exemption
would
be
granted,
and
the
problem
from
a
pep
protector
is
that
we
do
not
have
the
clinical
expertise
on
staff
to
make
that,
so
it
would
fall
back
onto
the
pharmacy
benefit
manager,
which
would
already
have
done
that
through
the
step
therapy
process.
If
that
makes
any
sense.
N
Thank
you
very
much
rich.
That
made
it
a
little
bit
clearer
for
me,
so
basically
you're
saying
that
your
contract
with
your
pbm
manages
this
function
for
you.
Pebb
does
not
manage
this
function,
so
we
would
need
to
be
explicit
in
the
language
that
would
say
that
if
an
insurance
company
had
someone
doing
this
for
them
that
it
wouldn't
have
to
be
done
twice
that
you
could
use
what
was
provided
to
you
as
dealing
with
the
appeal
process,
so
that
you
wouldn't
have
to
in
essence,
redo
what
you're
paying
your
contractor
to
do.
N
B
Right,
the
laura
rich
for
the
record.
Yes,
it's!
We
have
just
basically
placed
the
original
fiscal
note
on
again,
because
that
first
amendment
did
away
with
the
language
that
that
would
require
an
insurer
that
uses
a
formulary
such
as
pebb
to
you
know,
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
bill
and
in
this
situation,
that
that
language
and
the
latest
amendment
that
language
was
removed,
and
so
the
original
fiscal
note
is,
it
was
placed
back
on
to
the
bill.
I
believe
I
had
staff
submitted
last
night,
so
it
it
does.
B
It
is
an
estimate,
because
again
we
don't
know
specifically
how
many
of
our
cancer
patients
are
in
stage
three
and
four.
We
don't
get
that
kind
of
of
information,
and
so
the
pbm
had
to
use
an
estimate
of
you
know
what
that
would
what
that
would
look
like.
So
that's
that's
a
best
guess
type.
You
know
estimate
that
we
we
provided
based
on
the
information
we
we
received
from
our
pharmacy
benefit
manager,.
N
And
thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair
and
and
miss
rich.
If
you
could
get
me
a
little
more,
you
know
my
our
fiscal
staff
is
going
to
be
asking
for
this
a
little
more
detail
on
the
the
population
you're.
Looking
at
the
total
population
versus
the
percentage.
N
A
M
Sure
thank
you
chair,
so
I'd
like
to
first
say
I'd
just
like
to
give
you
an
example.
So
if
you
go
to,
if
I
went
to
the
doctor
right
now
and
I
was
diagnosed
with
stage
3
or
4
cancer
currently
under
insurance
protocols,
I
would
have
to
start
with
the
step
1
medicine.
M
M
What
we're
looking
for
is
the
people
that
are
going
to
the
doctor
and
being
diagnosed
with
stage
one
or
two
that
need
to
jump
to
a
three
or
four,
because
that's
what
they
have.
So
I
think
it's
really
important
to
keep
that
distinction
there.
It's
kind
of
complex
we
worked
with
the
prescription,
benefit
managers
on
this
bill.
They
were
part
of
the
discussion,
and
so
this
is
kind
of
the
first
time
I've
heard
about
this,
but
I
would
also
say
the
federal
government
currently
has
a
bill
about
step
therapy
and
exceptions.
M
There's
it
was
in
the
last
session
and
it
was
renewed
in
this
session
and
currently
senator
jackie
rosen
has
signed
on
in
the
senate
and
in
the
house
and
congressman
mark
amade
has
signed
on
so
I
and
and
what
their
bill
does
it
treats
every
kind
of
disease.
M
I
chose
to
concentrate
on
the
disease
that
affects
nevadans
the
most
and
because
it
would
be
fair
to
say
that
insurance
companies
are
skittish
about
how
much
this
is
going
to
cost.
But
what
I
can
tell
you
is
in
my
research
states
like
washington
and
california,
have
laws
just
like
this
that
allow
this
and
their
insurance
costs
are
lower
than
nevada's
insurance
cost.
M
I
would
be
so
thrilled
if
we
could
in
include
medicaid
in
this
bill,
because
I
really
want
to
do
that.
I
was
thinking
about
where
our
state
was
and
not
knowing
the
cost.
That's
why
I
exempted
it
from
the
bill
in
this
time.
So,
thank
you
for
your
attention
to
this
matter.
I
hope
that
we
can
vote
it
out
and
head
to
the
floor
or
finance
wherever
we
might
be
going,
but
thank
you
so
much.
A
Thank
you
senator
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
290..
Our
last
bill
for
bill
hearing
on
the
agenda
is
senate
bill
320..
I
see
senator
neil
here
so
at
this
time
I
would
like
to
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
320,
which
enacts
various
provisions
relating
to
food
delivery.
Service
platforms.
Welcome
senator
neil.
O
O
O
if
anybody's
ever
ordered
food
from
third
party
food
delivery
services
during
this
pandemic
or
before
you
have
realized
either
that
it
has
come
to
be
a
little
bit
more
expensive
than
it
used
to
be
and
that
these
companies
are
in
a
space
where
we
all
had
to
depend
on
them,
because
we
were
unwilling
to
go
outside
because
of
the
pandemic
and
because
restaurants
were
pretty
much
zero
capacity,
and
so
this
bill
is
set
out
to
at
least
try
to
engage
in
some
of
the
practices
that
started
to
pop
up
and
appear
during
the
pandemic,
so
just
to
quickly
go
through
the
bill.
O
So
sections
three
three
four
pretty
much
three
through
ten
are
all
definitions,
including
11
and
11.,
and
so
those
are
just
the
general
definitions:
try
to
understand
who's.
What
and
who's
the
user
who's
a
third
party
delivery
platform.
The
key
provisions
are
really
12
through
19.
O
and
they're,
the
ones
that
have
we
have
gone
through
a
series
of
changes
and
discussion
on
I'm
going
to
go
through
12.
Actually,
I
should
back
up.
I
need
to
go
through
section
four,
because
we
actually
have
a
an
amendment
on
section
four.
So
in
section
four,
where
the
food
service
delivery
platform,
which
gave
you
a
definition,
the
amendment
that
you
guys
have
on
nellis,
we
had
to
change
this
because,
as
the
bill
sat
out
there
for
about
a
month,
we
got
an
email
from
a
taskrabbit.
O
If
anybody
knows
what
taskrabbit
is
you're
nodding,
but
I
don't
even
know
what
taskrabbit
is,
but
apparently
this
definition
captured
taskrabbit
and
they
were
like.
We
don't
want
to
be
captured
and
we
agreed
and
so
the
so.
There
was
amendment
to
section
four,
which
basically
said
we
added
additional
definition
of
what
does
not
constitute
a
third
party
delivery
company.
O
We
do
not
wish
to
capture
task
task
rabbit
or
this
part
of
the
market,
because
they
do
not
charge
a
restaurant
commission
fee
and
would
conduct
their
business
from
the
perspective
of
a
customer
versus
a
delivery
company.
So
the
amendment
for
section,
4,
sub,
1,
reads:
food
delivery,
service
platform
means
an
internet
website
online
service
or
mobile
application,
which
allows
users
to
purchase
food
for
multiple
food,
dispensing
establishments
and
arrange
for
same-day
delivery
or
same-day
pickup
of
such
food
food
delivery.
O
Okay.
So
now
I
will
go
to
section
12.,
so
section
12.
This
was
a
provision
in
the
bill
that
we
were
trying
to
get
at
individuals
who
might
have
been
doing
some
menu
stealing
and
putting
information
for
a
restaurant
that
they
didn't
have
permission
to
actually
have
their
information
on
their
food
platform.
And
so
this
provision
basically
says
that
unless
a
food
delivery
service
platform
has
entered
into
a
written
agreement
with
the
food
dispensing
establishment-
and
that
is
expressed-
expressly
authorized
that
they
should
not
have
a
restaurant's
menu
on
their
website.
O
Section
13
basically
says
that
they
when
they
need
to
remove
it.
So
this
basically
spells
out
that
if
they
find
out
that
the
menu
is
on
the
website,
they
now
have
to
remove
it
within.
They
said
a
it's
a
timely
manner,
but,
and
then
it's
within
that
48
hours,
because
that
was
an
agreement
and
then
also
there's
in
sub
three
a
penalty.
I
pulled
this
penalty
from
rhode
island.
O
There
are
other
states
that
are
actually
trying
to
deal
with
this
issue
and
so
actually
rhode
island
had
a
penalty
of
a
thousand
per
day
of
the
violation,
and
I
thought
that
was
pretty
steep.
So
I
dropped
it
down
to
500
for
nevada
that
if,
if
a,
if
a
third
party
food
delivery
platform
has
a
restaurant's
menu
on
their
website
without
permission,
you
need
to
remove
it.
If
you're
told
to
remove
it
and
you
don't,
we
start
finding
you
so
section.
14
lays
out
the
intellectual
property.
O
Do
not
go
around
stealing
images
of
a
restaurant,
putting
it
on
the
platform,
and
you
know
you
don't
have
permission
to
use
it,
and
so
this
then
also
adds
a
civil
penalty
if
the
person
by
if
a
company
violates
this
provision
and
it
kicks
in
a
500
500
day,
violation
for
each
day
of
the
continuance
of
the
violation,
and
it
constitutes
a
separate
and
distinct.
So
this
kicks
in,
we
find
out
it's
on.
There
you're
told
take
my
kfc
logo
off
of
your
website
or
you
know
we
could.
O
O
And
then,
in
section
15,
basically,
this
says
we
have
the
right
to
bring
in
action
against
the
food
service
delivery
platform
in
the
sum
of
5000
or
the
amount
of
the
actual
damages
sustained.
Whichever
is
greater
and
then
in
section
16.
This
is
the
disclosure
provisions
which
has
an
amendment
to
it,
and
these
disclosure
provisions
caused
they
probably
called
cause,
miss
dazzling,
gray
hair,
and
then
I
was
a
secondary
recipient
of
the
gray
hair,
and
then
you
guys,
probably
were
the
third,
because
I'm
sure
they
were
like
hey,
sb
320
is
coming
your
way.
O
I
hate
it.
Please
please,
please
change
this
bill,
and
so
in
section
16,
the
amendment
that
we
have
for
this
part
on
the
disclosure
section
16
has
been
amended
to
take
out
the
average
percentage
a
restaurant
can
pay
and
now
only
requires
a
third
party
delivery
provider
to
provide
a
statement
that
the
restaurant
is
charged,
a
commission
that
is
separate
from
the
delivery
fee
paid
by
the
customer.
O
Because
I
don't
have
knowledge
on
how
commissions
work,
so
the
next
section
is
section
17
which
says
that,
basically,
if
a
food
delivery
service
platform
providers
determines
that
it's
not
feasible
to
disclose
the
information
required
pursuant
to
section
16
that
they
may
submit
a
request
to
the
commissioner
for
consumer
affairs
about
the
alternate
manner
in
which
they
would
like
to
disclose
this
information.
O
We
have
talked
to
mr
reynolds
over
at
bni
and
basically,
what
they're
going
to
do
is
do
regs
to
try
to
take
the
fiscal
note
off
the
bill,
since
this
will
go
to
the
consumer
affairs
and
they
will
have
a
role
in
any
kind
of
issues
that
pop
up
and
section
18
also
deems
the
acts
in
16
and
17
as
deceptive
trade
practice.
O
Now
for
section
19,
I'm
going
to
let
miss
dazzlich
explain
that
one,
because
that
is
the
one
that
has
gone
through.
I
think
at
least
how
many
reiterations
like
six
or
seven
yeah.
P
Good
afternoon
committee
chair
for
the
record
alexandria
dazzling
with
the
nevada
restaurant
association,
so
section
19
has
gone
through
numerous
changes,
including
the
percentage
that
a
restaurant
is,
or
I
should
say
a
third
party
is-
is
charging
a
restaurant
so
that
was
pushed
down
from
20
to
15
percent.
So
we've
lowered
that
temporary
cap
from
20
to
15
percent.
P
P
In
addition,
we've
delegated
that
control
to
the
county
we've
changed
that
from
the
governor
we've
delegated
it
to
the
county.
For
the
purposes
of
that
may
first
deadline.
We
we
hope
that
that
was
just
something
that
could
be
determined
by
each
different
county.
They
can
kind
of
see
you
know,
because
it's
going
to
be
based
off
of
dine-in
capacity
restrictions,
so
it's
going
to
be
based
off
of
capacity.
P
In
addition,
there
is
an
exemption
that
we've
added
and
that
particular
exemption
is
for
active
caps
that
have
already
been
instituted
before
april
30th,
and
the
purpose
of
that
is
because
of
that
clark,
county
cap
that
was
passed
last
year.
So
that
was
the
only
exemption
that
is
added.
A
Q
I
wanted
to
go
back
to
your
conversation
regarding
the
penalties
for
misutilizing
someone
else's
menu
or
information
on
your
on
the
website,
but
I
guess
I
want
to
understand
what
what
the
issue
is
more
so,
first,
if
I'm
a
restaurant-
and
there
is
a
a
third
party
that
is
bringing
business
to
me
and
picking
up
items
doing
x,
y
and
z
and
they
have
my
menu,
I'm
trying
to
understand
why
the
what
what's
the
issue
there
number
two,
if
what,
if
they
just
have
links
to
your
website,
you
come
to
the
third
party
and
there's
just
a
bunch
of
links
to
the
menus
of
other
of
other
businesses.
Q
O
Okay,
so
this
is
going
to
be
a
two-part
because
I'm
going
to
start
and
then
I'm
going
to
let
miss
dazzling-
and
I
don't
know-
if
do
you
think,
mr?
What
hashtag
agogo
could
speak
to
that,
but
so
there
was
menu
stealing
going
on
right.
So
this
is
not
where
we
already
have
an
existing
relationship.
This
is
you
have
used
my
information
because
you
somehow
want
to
either
tie
tie
the
restaurant
into
that
platform,
but
you
do
not
have
permission
to
have
that
menu
on
there.
O
You
haven't
had
a
conversation
with
the
restaurant,
but
what
you're
doing
is
placing
it
on
there
and
then
folks
are
putting
in
orders,
but
there
is
no
actual
contractual
relationship
between
that
restaurant
and
that
third
party
delivery
platform,
and
so
that's
that
needed
to
be
corrected
because
a
couple
reasons
and
I'll
let
miss
dazzling
break
that
down
down,
but
the
other
part
that
you
asked
about
about
the
likeness
and
the
intellectual
property.
O
I
guess
rope
in
the
restaurant
to
start
being
a
partner
so
because
most
people
you
get
on
the
you
get
on
doordash
or
you
get
on
ubereats
and
you're
like
hey,
I
really
want
something
from
gogo,
but
I
don't
see
gogo
and
so
somehow
it
mystically
shows
up
there,
but
hash
hashtago
is
saying
we
don't
have
a
relationship
with
doordash,
so
our
stuff
shouldn't
be
on
there
because
we
haven't
entered
into
a
contract.
This
tries
to
get
at
that
bad
behavior
and
stop
that
behavior,
and
so
that's
the
provision
but
more
detail
I'll.
O
O
To
go
to
miss
dazelig
first,
because
I
don't
know
if
this
has
happened
to
him,
but
I'm
sure
he
knows
about
it.
I
just
know
that.
That's
why
we
have
the
provisions
in
the
bill
cause.
This
was
happening
and
they
felt
like
they
had
no
rights
and
there's
no
statutory
construction.
That
tells
don't
do
this.
P
For
the
record
alexander
dazlich,
with
the
nevada
restaurant
association,
so
the
issue
that
we're
having
here
is
because
when
third
parties
take
the
menus,
oftentimes,
they're,
outdated
or
there's
there's,
there
requires
further
specification,
there's
also
incorrect
business
hours
that
have
been
changed
because
of
covet
a
lot
of
the
menus
have
been
pared
down.
So
a
lot
of
these
types
of
issues
are
reflected
on
the
restaurant.
P
So
when
that
customer
puts
in
that
order-
and
let's
say
it's
for
a
it's
for
a
thai
restaurant-
and
it
requires
additional
specification
in
terms
of
spiciness-
if,
if
the
third
party
just
goes
on
behalf
of
the
restaurant-
and
it
comes
back-
not
what
the
customer
ordered
and
it's
too
spicy,
then
that
customer
can
go
back
and
create
a
bad
review
for
that
particular
restaurant.
So
it
often
time
reflects
badly
on
the
restaurants.
It's
been
something
that's
been
an
issue
even
before
the
pandemic,
and
it's
been
exacerbated
since
then.
Q
Understood
madam
chair,
if
I
may
thank
you
understood
so
and
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
get
at
that.
It's
not
an
issue
that
the
third
party
wasn't
providing
the
item
that
you
were
purchasing.
It
was
more
a
question
of
if
you're
getting
exactly
what
you
asked
for
or
little
questions
like
that.
But
it's
not
that
the
third
party
was
receiving
an
order.
Then
they
place
it
themselves
right
and
there's
a
fee
for
that
and
and
then
at
some
point,
you're
still
getting
your
food
and
all
that
is
happening.
Q
Q
If
I
want
that,
I
I'm
just
having
a
hard
time
understanding
the
penalties
on
that
side,
but
I
do
understand
taking
somebody's
intellectual
property.
I
I
guess
I
can
respect
that,
but
I'm
just
having
a
hard
time
understanding
the
the
penalizing
somebody
when
I'm
entering
two
third
party
said,
go
get
this
food.
For
me
I
mean
I,
I
guess
I'm
just
having
a
hard
time
still
getting
there,
but
and
maybe
you
have
some
additional
information,
but
it's
not
that
they're
not
getting
the
the
food
and
it's
not
that
th
they're.
Q
P
Alexander
dazlich,
with
the
nevada
restaurant
association,
even
if
the
restaurant
does
not
have
a
relationship
with
the
third
party,
there
have
been
instances
where
they've
showed
up
to
the
restaurant
and
pretended
to
have
that
relationship
and
then
build
the
restaurant
at
a
later
time.
So
there
is
a
there
are
instances
where
that
has
happened
and
then
they'll.
They
would
be
contractually
obligated,
according
to
the
third
party,
to
pay
those
fees.
So
there
there
is
is
more
than
just
it.
You
know
being
delivered
cold
or
inaccurate
or
having
bad
reviews.
P
So
there
are-
and
this
has
been
a
huge
problem.
In
fact,
third
party
has
agreed
to
adopt
these
types
of
provisions,
and
I
think
I
can
say
with
full
transparency
that
all
three
delivery
providers
are
very
open
to
this
particular
section.
It's
not
contentious
whatsoever.
O
So
there
is
a
notice
provision
in
there
that
if
you
find
out
that
the
link
is
on
the
website
and
you're
saying
well,
why
are
you?
Why
are
you
advertising
and
I
don't
have
a
relationship
with
you?
I
think,
within
that
48
hours.
That
needs
to
be
corrected
right
and
I
mean-
and
I
I
think,
you're
worried
about
the
the
the
fine,
but
there
is
also
a
window
where
you
have
time
to
fix
it
if
it's
found
out.
O
So
if
it's
something
as
menial
as
that,
I
I
honestly
feel
like
if
you're,
if
this
is
a
business
to
business
relationship.
First
of
all,
you
shouldn't
be
using
anything
without
anybody's
permission.
It's
the
same
thing
like
with
your
law.
Firm
right,
you
don't
want
anybody
out
there
saying,
oh
well,
if
if
they
gave
you
a
bad
review
that
falls
on
you,
but
if
they're,
putting
like
some
other
law
firm,
is
putting
your
website
on
there
on
their
website
saying.
O
Well,
he
doesn't
really
practice
this
version
of
law,
and
then
you
find
out
that
your
link
is
on
some
canadian
website
right.
You're,
like
you,
have
to
deal
with
it.
The
question
is:
how
would
you
like
to
deal
with
that,
especially
if
the
link
is
giving
a
misrepresentation
about
your
law
firm?
Does
that
does
that
make
it
better?
O
I
mean
because
technically
to
me,
if
you
have
my
information
on
your
website-
and
I
didn't
give
you
permission
whether
it's
the
internet
link
or
not,
you
are
actually
misrepresenting
me
if
we
don't
have
a
written
contract
for
you
to
do
that,
because
we
don't
have
a
business
relationship.
So
why
why?
Why
do
you
have
my
stuff
and
that's
how
I
view
it.
Q
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
indulgence.
I
I
guess
we're
just
now
starting
to
get
into
this
weird
I
mean
if
a
link
is
an
issue,
I'm
just
having
a
difficult
time.
Even
starting
to
to
get
there
links
are,
are
posted
everywhere.
We
consistently
do
it
all
the
time.
There's
third-party
platforms,
numerous
third-party
platforms,
where
we
put
links
on
there,
I'm
just
having
a
we
start
getting
into
the
world
where
you
can't
post
a
link,
and
that
could
be
problematic.
Q
I
just
have
a
huge
issue
with
that.
I
think
this,
this
universe
that
we're
getting
into
is,
is
so
large
and
and
we're
casting
such
a
wide
net,
but
to
say
that
a
link
could
be
problematic.
I
don't
know
that.
That's
misrepresenting
anything
you're
just
posting,
so
I
mean
episode,
I
mean,
and
we
can
have
this
conversation
offline
and
I
think
I
just
need
to
kind
of
walk
through
it
myself
in
my
head.
Q
O
Yeah,
so
let's,
let's
have
a
conversation
about
that
because
in
section
14
it's
like
it's
like
if
likeness
is
defined,
has
a
legal
definition,
and
I
think
that
you
know
it
falls
into
I'm
not
sure
it
falls
into
a
website
link.
But
if
you
want
the
bill
to
say
that
it's
not
a
website
link
that
we're
talking
about,
but
simply
when
you
get
into
the
trademark
intellectual
property
and
the
likeness
right,
like
the
actual
likeness,
that
I
have
a
legal
right
to
cannot
be
used
without
permission.
And
ultimately
that's
that's
my
goal.
O
A
G
You,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill,
I'm
going
to
go
to
section
16.,
but
where
I
want
to
start
is
reading
when
I
read
the
legislative
council's
digest
on
section
16
where
it
says
bill
requires
a
food
delivery
service
platform
provider
to
disclose
certain
information.
G
What
I
sort
of
envisioned
is
that
if
I
was
ordering
food,
then
on
sort
of
the
receipt,
when
I
paid
there'd,
be
here's
the
total
cost
of
the
food.
Here's,
the
delivery
fee,
here's
the
credit
card
fees,
here's
any
required
tip,
here's
whatever
else.
So
that's
what
I
had
in
mind,
so
I'm
kind
of-
and
I
think,
maybe
a
little
lost
about
those
changes
to
16d
in
the
situation.
If
this
bill
were
to
pass,
what
would
I
see
on
that
receipt
now?
P
P
It
would
just
be
a
statement,
so
you
would
have
the
price
of
the
food
any
sales
tax,
the
amount
that
the
the
driver
would
be
paid
and
then
at
the
very
bottom.
It
would
just
be
a
commission
statement
so
just
a
statement
that
says
that
the
restaurant
is
charged
a
commission
fee
in
addition
to
the
delivery
fee,
that
the
customer
pays.
It's
just
a
simple
sentence:
there's
absolutely
no
percentages,
there's
no
averaging!
P
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear
that
it's
just
it's
it's
been.
It
started
off
as
something
that
was
supposed
to
disclose
those
types
of
rates
and
fees,
but
that
since
since
then
has
just
become
a
sentence,
so
absolutely
no
proprietary
or
sensitive
information.
That's
that's
contained
in
section
16.
Now.
G
P
P
P
Exactly
and
that's
for
the
purpose
of
consumer
education,
I
think
a
lot
of
people
don't
understand
when
they
pay
these
fees.
They
think
that
they're
they're
covering
the
delivery
fee,
but
the
restaurant
is
charged
up
to
30
percent
per
order,
which
oftentimes
absolutely
takes
out
all
the
profit
or
any
type
of
revenue
that
they
would
be
able
to
make
on
these
these
transactions.
So
again
it's
to
kind
of
educate
the
consumer
side
before
they
and
that's.
I
want
to
be
clear.
P
That's
before
that
they
they
place
an
order,
as
well
as
on
the
receipt,
if
that's
applicable,
if
there's
a
receipt
provided.
A
Thank
you
and
I'm
going
to
jump
in,
because
I
have
a
question
on
that
section
too,
and
I'm
glad
you
touched
on
that
on
why
you
guys
want
that
disclaimer,
because
I
just
I
didn't
understand
that
portion
of
the
bill
like
what
you
know.
What
is
the
purpose
of
letting
the
consumer
know
that
there
is
a
commission,
you
know
paid.
Obviously
you
know,
dashers
are,
you
know,
are
they're
getting
paid
for
their
work.
A
You
guys,
like
a
restaurant,
doesn't
disclose
that
you
know
they
have
to
pay
for
the
products
that
they
buy
to
make
the
products
that
they're
going
to
sell.
Everyone
knows
right
that
there's
that
there's
a
cost
of
doing
for
doing
business,
and
so
I
mean
so
what
is
the
main
purpose?
I
mean
like
of
letting
what
are
you
guys
hoping
to
accomplish
by
letting
the
consumer
know
that
there's
a
commission
paid
or
that
you
know
that
the
restaurant
does
pay,
help
pay
for
the
cost
of
delivery,
which
I
don't
understand.
P
Alexander
daswich,
with
the
nevada
restaurant
association,
the
purpose
of
that
is,
there's
a
total
lack
of
of
transparency.
Right
now,
I
think
when
we're
interacting
with
third-party
delivery,
as
well
as
just
general
tech
companies,
I
think
a
lot
of
people
have
ideas
of
of
what
they
charge
or
their
kind
of
ethereal
ideas,
and
when
we
dealt
with
the
clark
county
commission,
it
was
really
difficult
to
even
pass
that
cap
of
15
because
they
said
well,
there's
all
these
different
reasons.
P
However,
I
think
overall,
there's
just
been
a
lack
of
understanding,
a
lack
of
clarity,
a
lack
of
you
know.
You
know
transparency
in
general,
so
this
is,
you
know
supposed
to
kind
of
encourage
the
fact
that
again,
restaurant
people
understand
that
restaurants
pay
for
every
transaction
and
potentially
up
to
30
percent.
But
of
course,
we've
taken
out
any
type
of
number
or
any
association
to
that
you
know
those
particular
types
of
relationships
or
proprietary
information.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
and
I'm
gonna
go
to
one
of
the
members
next,
but
I
guess
I
guess
for
for
me
with
my
understanding
like
I
knew
that
there
was
a
you
know
as
as
a
consumer.
I,
when
I
would
order
from
my
local
favorite
restaurants.
If
they
offered
delivery
service,
I
would
always
order
directly
from
the
restaurant,
so
as
the
restaurant
could
keep
more
of
that
money
within
them
right
and
then.
A
Obviously,
if
the
restaurant
didn't
offer
delivery
service,
then
I
would
order
from
a
third
party
app
right,
but
but
because
I
knew
I
knew
I
I
knew
so
I
just
I
guess,
I'm
under
the
assumption
that
everyone
else
knows
as
well,
because
I
mean,
but
if
the
restaurant
doesn't
offer
a
delivery
service,
then
there
really
is
no
other
avenue
for
a
consumer
right
unless
the
okay.
So
that
was
more
of
a.
I
guess
comment,
but
yes,.
O
Chairwoman,
I
I
wonder
if
the
vice
president
of
hash
hashtag
could
eliminate
a
little
bit
more
on
that,
so.
R
The
question
comes
up
when
people
don't
understand
the
magnitude
of
what
the
third
parties
charge
and
they
all
charge
differently,
they
charge
for
marketing
and
there
is
no
one
way
that
they
do
it.
So
it
varies,
and
that's
why
we
went
to
the
clark
county
to
get
to
15
was
to
get
some
stabilization
in
the
cost
during
this
pandemic.
R
H
Thank
you
chair,
and
I
appreciate
this
bill
because
when
we
owned
our
sandwich
shop
through
the
pandemic,
we
had
some
of
these
same
issues.
We
had
never
signed
up
for
any
of
these
delivery
services
because
of
the
fact
we
didn't
want
to
pay
extra.
My
husband
was
like
I'm
not
going
to
pay
this
extra
money.
You
know
I'll,
deliver
it
myself
or
whatever.
H
So
then,
when
we,
you
know
got
into
the
situation
of,
we
couldn't
have
the
store
open
for
customers
to
sit
in
there.
We
had
to
rethink
of
what
we
were
going
to
do,
and
ours
is
even
a
little
bit
different
because
as
a
franchise,
some
of
the
stores
are
corporate.
Some
are
franchised,
so
we
had
instances
where
some
you
know
a
delivery
person
would
come
in
to
get
an
order
and
we're
like
we.
This
didn't
come
through
our
line
service.
Where
did
this
come
from?
And
then
to
your
point?
H
H
So
you
know
we
went
through
and
signed
up
with
some
of
these
sign
the
contracts
and
things
like
that,
so
that
you
know
we
can
increase
our
business.
So
I
totally
understand
and
grateful
for
this
bill
because
I
know
it
can
cause
a
lot
of
issues
for
the
business
owner
and
for
the
consumers
who
don't
understand.
H
Why
are
you
charging
me
so
much
or
why
is
this?
You
know
what
are
all
these
fees
on
here,
so
my
question
would
be.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
since
there's
a
in
section
19
talks
about
the
when
there's
a
declaration
of
emergency,
this
bill
is
not
just
while
we're
in
an
emergency.
This
is
like
going
forward
from
from
here
on.
O
It's
going
to
be
variable,
so
the
what
we
worked
out
and
the
amendment
that
we
worked
out
was
that
if
the,
if
the
county
is
still
at
a
limitation
or
if,
let's
say
because
we
go
to
100
but
not
everybody's
vaccinated-
and
we
find
ourselves
back
in
a
flare-up
that
this
then
becomes
a
variable
that
will
come
back
in
operation
if
there
is
no
actual
pandemic
or
or
or
something
that's
being
like
the
social
distancing.
That's
in
play,
it's
not
in
play.
The
argument
that
was
made
to
us
was
that
it's
a
free
market.
O
Ideally,
yes,
that
would
make
sense
to
the
universe
right
to
allow
for
some
kind
of
regulation
over
these
entities,
but
they
have
persuaded
enough
people
that
section
19
without
the
amendment
that
we
currently
have,
which
which
I
believe
is
even
changed
even
more
so
since
last
night's
conversation
is
the
only
way
that
we
will
be
able
to
successfully
get
a
vote
on
this
bill,
because
they
have
actively
lobbied
to
make
sure
that
we
couldn't
have
any
regulation
post
pandemic.
O
P
Alexander
dazzle
with
the
nevada,
restaurant
association
and
the
thought
behind
tying
that
to
restaurant
specific
restrictions
is,
if
we're
not
operating
at
100,
then
we're
not
really
operating
in
a
free
market.
So
if
they
don't
have
that
opportunity
to
completely
have
dine
in
or
offer
that,
then
that's
something
that
we
feel
should
be
curtailed
temporarily
and,
of
course,
that's
a
temporary
cap
and
again
it's
something
that's
been
passed
across
the
nation.
I
think
eight
other
states
have
already
passed
it,
including
oregon
washington.
P
J
J
and
I've
got
to
say
that
I
I
was
opposed
to
the
bill
initially
because
of
that
in
the
free
market
that
I
and
you
worked
diligently.
You
were
just
tremendous
in
working
this.
I
can't
thank
you
enough
for
it,
but
I
have
another
suggestion:
it's
the
enacting
date
since
we
are
starting
to
come
out
of
the
pandemic
and
we're
going
to
local
jurisdictions.
J
When
we
went
out
several
several
weeks
ago,
and
I
witnessed
an
argument
between
the-
I
guess
you
would
say
the
cashier
one
of
the
food
delivery
places
that
had
just
done
that
they
had
their
own
website
had
pirated
the
connection.
Whoops
the
connection
into
the
local
restaurant
and
the
restaurant
had
people
calling
them
up
just
complaining
to
no
end
about
what
they
were
paying
for
and
how
dare
they
waste
prices?
It
was
price,
gouging,
etc.
J
O
Statement
so
thank
you,
assemblyman
o'neil.
We
would
be
willing
to
make
those
changes,
but
if
you
get
any
additional
phone
calls
telling
you,
I
hate
that
I'm
gonna
put
that
all
on
you,
okay,
okay,.
A
R
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
jeff
trent,
I'm
the
vice
president
of
operations
of
hash
house
of
gogo.
Most
of
what
we've
covered
this
afternoon
is
relevant
just
to
our
industry,
but
assembly
flooring
and
assembly.
Hardy
brought
up
a
question
about
menu
stealing,
and
I
wanted
to
add
a
couple
sentences
to
that
without
any
written
agreement.
R
If
what
happened
to
miss
hardy
happens
and
that
third
party
goes
away
and
leaves
the
food
in
the
car-
and
there
is
a
food
illness
created
because
of
that,
that
third
party
is
not
liable,
they
have
no
insurance
protection
that
covers
the
restaurant
or
themselves
in
that
case,
and
so
the
insurance
people
come
to
the
restaurant
or
because
they're
insured
they're
gonna
try
to
tag
us
with
that
penalty.
R
It
doesn't
meet
what
you
ensure
with
a
a
written
agreement
that
third
parties
are
going
to
abide
by
the
health
department
regulations
and
then
the
trademark,
the
trademark.
We
pay
a
lot
of
money
to
have
our
trademark
secure
and
protected,
and
when
they
third
parties
circumvent
the
third
by
by
using
it
illegally,
they
circumvent
the
trademark
law
and
diminish
the
brand.
Possibly,
and
it's
a
it,
is
a
big
thing
with
a
company
when
someone
puts
on
a
improper
representation
and
has
no
right
to
do
it.
R
A
B
B
D
D
Camber
supports
sb
320
because
it
brings
transparency
and
parity
between
the
interested
parties
which,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
benefits
nevada's
consumers.
As
you
have
heard,
our
restaurants,
which
include
small
and
family-owned
operations,
have
been
hit
significantly
hard
during
the
pandemic.
We
believe
this
bill
will
help
those
small
restaurants
as
they
attempt
to
recover
and
rebuild.
B
Color
with
the
last
three
digits
of
four
zero
seven,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You'll
have
two
minutes
and
we
begin
thank
you
broadcast
for
the
record.
This
is
randy
thompson,
r-a-n-d-I,
t-h-o-m-p-s-o-n,
nevada,
state
director
for
the
national
federation
of
independent
business.
I
first
want
to
thank
senator
neil
for
bringing
this
bill.
It's
a
very
important
bill,
although
complicated
and
thank
you
chair
did
you
for
hearing
the
bill.
B
A
B
B
D
Hello,
everybody,
my
name
is
cyrus
gojadi,
c-y-r-u-s
h-o-j-j-a-t-y.
I
think
it's
very
important
to
bring
a
lot
of
transparency
to
these
delivery
services
and
apps.
I
hear
that
many
restaurants
have
been
over
charged
they've
been
hit
very
hard.
D
D
D
Will
this
mean
fewer
work
for
these
delivery
drivers,
because
a
lot
of
these
people
depend
on
these
jobs
to
make
the
living,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
they
make
ends
meet
and
thank
you
guys
so
much
for
bringing
this
bill.
It's
very
important
to
talk
about
it
and
if
you'll
excuse
me,
I
say
I've
been
hearing
a
lot
of
outside
noise.
I'm
sorry
to
say
thank
you.
B
S
S
A
B
Yes,
sheriff
caller
with
the
last
three
digits
of
903,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You'll
have
two
minutes,
and
maybe
again
good
afternoon,
jennifer,
lazovich,
l-a-z-o-v
and
victor
ich
on
behalf
of
doordash.
Although
doordash
does
not
support
commission
caps,
we
are
testifying
in
neutral.
Today
we
want
to
thank
senator
neil
and
alexandria
doglitch
for
working
with
us
on
language
in
section
19.
That
would
make
it
clear
that
the
temporary
cap
is
in
place
for
as
long
as
there
are
occupancy
and
social
distancing
limitations
on
restaurants.
B
If
there
are
no
occupancy
or
social
distancing
limitations
on
restaurants,
the
temporary
cap
would
not
apply.
We
came
to
an
agreement
with
senator
neil
in
alexandria
on
the
language
late
last
night.
The
language
that
was
posted
on
nellis
with
the
amendment
isn't
quite
what
we
agreed
to,
but
alexandria
did
refer
to
it
in
the
portion
that
we
talked
about
in
her
testimony.
A
N
So
if
there
was
a
problem
with
something
that
happened
with
the
employee,
would
doordash
be
the
responsible
party
or
would
the
driver
be
the
responsible
party?
Let's
say
a
sandwich
was
left
in
a
hot
car,
120
degrees
they're
doing
two
hours
worth
of
deliveries
that
last
sandwich
ends
up
causing
a
problem.
B
N
And
thank
you,
I
think
that's
one
of
the
concerns
that
we
have
is
we
want
at
least
I
have
and
being
in
the
food
industry
for
years.
I
understand
what
what
can
happen
and
I
think
you
guys
need
to
mark
it
down
that
the
restaurant
association
and
I
are
on
the
same
page
one
day
out
of
24
years,
so
I
think
that
needs.
N
I
need
a
gold
star
for
that
one,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
if
there
is
a
problem,
the
consumer
knows
what's
going
to
happen
and
we
heard
from
the
gentleman
from
hash
house
of
gogo-
and
I
have
seen
I
I
do
not
use
these
because
of
my
my
perspective
on
food.
But
I
have
noticed
folks
telling
me
that
that
they're
having
problems
getting
the
quality
of
food
that
they
know
probably
came
out
of
the
restaurant,
but
it
wasn't
the
same
quality
by
the
time
it
got
to
their
door.
N
A
You
vice
chair
broadcasting.
Are
there
any
other
callers
in
queue.
B
T
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is:
rose
mckinney
james
m-c-k-I-n-n-e-y,
hyphen
j-a-m-e-s,
I'm
the
managing
principal
of
mckinney
james
and
associates,
and
here
today
representing
grubhub.
T
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
we
appear
to
be
turning
a
corner
on
the
challenges
created
by
covet
that
resulted
in
these
temporary
restrictions.
That
said,
I
think
we
can
acknowledge
and
expect
that
there
will
be
some
amount
of
transition
to
get
back
to
prior
levels
of
operations,
we're
pleased
to
have
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
the
language
that
will
ensure
clarity
around
the
menus
that
they're
being
properly
posted
and
based
on
a
written
agreement.
T
T
We
look
forward
to
working
with
the
sponsor
and
the
other
parties
to
address
this
newly
proposed
language.
We're
hopeful
that
the
parties
can
continue
to
refine
and
clarify
the
issues
related
to
the
expiration
and
understand
jurisdictional
considerations,
and
we
remain
hopeful
that
we
can
arrive
at
a
mutually
agreeable
resolution.
N
Yeah,
hello,
miss
mckinney
james
nice
to
hear
your
voice.
We
do
miss
you
in
the
building.
I
will
say
so
same
question
that
I
had
asked
miss
lazavich
earlier.
How
does
grubhub
look
at
their
employees?
Are
they
independent
contractors
if
there
was
an
issue
with
food?
Who
would
bear
the
liability
with
that?
I'm
not
asking
you
to
give
us
the
answer
right
now,
but
if
you
could
provide
us
that
information
as
we
move
forward,
I
believe
it
would
be
very
helpful.
Thank
you
very
much.
T
Thank
you,
so
much
rose
mckinney
james
for
the
record.
I
would
be
happy
also
to
seek
that
information
from
the
client
and
I
will
get
back
to
you.
O
A
A
You
should
have
your
work
session
documents
with
you.
I
know
they
were
emailed
to
you
yesterday
evening
with
that
I
will
hand
it
over
to
ms
paslov
thomas
to
present
senate
bill
35
for
work
session.
H
A
A
A
If
you
direct
your
remarks
to
issues
over
which
this
committee
has
no
oversight,
I
will
ask
you
to
redirect
your
remarks
or
terminate
them.
The
public
has
already
been
given
time
to
support
or
oppose
specific
legislation.
We
open
and
close
hearings
on
bills
so
that
we
establish
a
record
of
the
public
testimony
on
the
bill.
Therefore,
public
comment
is
not
intended
to
be
a
continuation
of
a
bill
hearing.
A
I
would
like
to
remind
everyone
that
we
take
30
minutes
of
public
comment
and
limit
public
comment
to
two
minutes
be
respectful
of
committee
members
and
other
witnesses.
Do
not
comment
on
testimony
provided
by
other
speakers
and
do
not
make
personal
attacks.
You
may
always
submit
written
remarks
for
inclusion
in
the
meeting
record
with
that
broadcasting.
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
okay
committee
members
at
this
time.
Is
there
any
comments
from
anyone
on
the
committee?
Okay,
seeing
none
then
you
have.
You
should
have
all
already
received
your
agenda
for
monday.
Please
note
the
start
time.
We
will
be
meeting
at
1
pm
on
monday.
Thank
you
and
have
a
nice
weekend.
Everyone
we
are.