►
From YouTube: 5/20/2021 - Senate 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
Here
so
a
couple
housekeeping
items-
and
I
think
by
now
everybody
knows
what
the
drill
is
make
sure
your
phones
are
off.
Tablets
are
off
anything,
that's
going
to
make
a
noise
call
your
name
or
tell
you
to
call
home,
make
sure
that
it's
silenced
and
if
those
of
you
who
who
wanted
to
say
something
or
wanted
to
comment
on
this
bill,
you
should
have
already
registered.
A
If
you
have
not
and
you're
under
the
sound
of
my
voice,
do
so
and
I
guess
they
might
try
to
get
you
in
today
we
have
a
hearing
on
assembly
bill
61..
A
This
is
might
be
the
last
one
nope
we
got
some
more
okay.
We
got
some
more
lots
more
coming
out,
but
so
we'll
hear
assembly
bill
61..
A
A
Do
all
that
put
your
name
and
address.
I
mean
your
name
and
phone
number
in
and
they
will
send
you
an
email.
Anyone
who
has
an
amendment
for
a
bill
that
is
being
heard.
If
you
have
not
talked
to
the
sponsor,
I'm
not
even
going
to
entertain
it,
so
you
must
talk
to
the
sponsor.
First,
I'm
not
the
kind
of
person
that
messes
with
people's
bills
so
talk
to
the
sponsor
first
and
if
they
say
it's
a
go,
then
we'll
go
so.
A
D
D
The
intent
of
this
bill
is
to
amend
consumer
protection
statutes
primarily
to
nrs
chapter
598.
The
nevada,
deceptive
trade
practices
act
for
the
benefit
of
individuals
and
businesses
in
this
state
this
bill
and
I'm
going
to
just
keep
a
very
high
level.
But
this
bill
seeks
to
accomplish
a
few
things.
It
seeks
to
establish
a
price
gouging
prohibition
during
the
times
of
emergency,
that's
important
to
note
that
we
worked
with
interested
stakeholders
and
made
concessions
to
ensure
that
provisions
were
limited
in
scope
and
duration.
D
It
only
applies
when
the
governor
declares
a
state
of
emergency
and
it's
only
applicable
in
the
geographic
area
of
that
emergencies
and
finally,
it
has
a
fixed
end
date
of
75
days.
It
also
seeks
to
harmonize
certain
criminal
penalties
with
that
of
general
fraud
or
theft.
It's
important
to
note
that
we
remained
mindful
of
criminal
justice
reform
and
worked
with
interested
stakeholders
to
align
the
penalties
for
death
under
the
deceptive
trade
practices.
D
Act
with
that
of
general
fraud
or
theft,
there
should
be
no
statistical
increase
in
the
number
of
cases
brought
by
the
attorney
general's
office
simply
allows
the
attorney
general's
office
to
bring
cases
under
the
separate
trade
practices
act
for
fraud
or
theft.
It
also
seeks
to
revise
prisons
related
to
the
administrative
hearings
in
general,
administrative
matters.
These
sections
had
no
opposition,
but
a
couple
highlights
are
that
it
increases
penalties
for
offenses
against
minors
to
mirror
those
against
the
elderly
and
it
ensures
violations
of
the
data
privacy
act
or
violations
of
the
deceptive
trade
practices
act.
D
It
also
seeks
to
modify
the
statute
of
limitations
for
certain
violations.
Deceptive
trade
practices
act.
It's
also
important
to
note
here
we
did
not
modify
the
statute
of
limitation
for
crimes
or
private
rights
of
actions,
and
finally,
it
seeks
to
adjust
penalties
for
robocalling
offenses
and
again,
it's
important
to
note
that
we
work
with
stakeholders
and
created
a
tiered
structure
for
this.
D
A
Thank
you,
mr
krugman.
Senator
hardy.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chairs.
I
see
that
there's
a
preclusion
for
charging
more
than
the
usual
price.
Are
there
any
provisions
in
here
that
I
haven't
read
yet
obviously
that
preclude
somebody
from
limiting
the
number
of
goods
of
a
specific
kind
that
can
be
sold
to
a
given
person
so
as
to
avoid
the
buying
it
out.
D
D
There
are
no
provisions
for
that
particular
piece
of
it,
so.
C
D
Senator
mark
ruger
for
the
record
you're
correct.
There
are
no
prohibition
against
buying
every
product
on
the
south
shelf.
There
are
also
no
prohibitions
against
a
store
limiting
the
number
of
items
to
sell,
so
a
store
would
still
retain
that
ability
to
do
that
in
these
times
of
emergency.
However,
you
are
also
correct
that
if
somebody
did
purchase
all
of
the
items
and
was
permitted
to
do
that,
then
they
turned
around
and
started
selling
them
at
for
more
than
the
usual
price.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
looking
at
the
sections
on
the
robocalls
and
the
like.
Well,
first,
let
me
start
with
section
one
we'll
just
take
these
in
order.
D
Senator
mark
kruger
for
the
record,
if
I
understand
your
correct
your
question
correctly,
there
would
be
and
there's
a
proposed
amendment
to
align
general
theft
provision
to
trade
violations
with
general
theft
provisions.
So
I
think
what
you're
saying
is-
and
maybe
I'm
off
here,
but
what
what
I'm
hearing
from
you
is
you're
asking
it
whether
or
not
there's
a
similar
provision.
There
should
be
if
you
pass
the
bill.
E
F
D
It
was
just
that
is
a
mystery
of
prior
we're,
we're
adding
a
pure
structure
and
look
again.
You
know
the
focus
on
on
robocalling
is
to
try
when
we
do
have
a
person
that
we
can
ultimately
find.
We
can
then
have
some
peace
in
our
law
to
be
able
to
correct
the
behavior
and
bring
in
action
to
stop
robocalling,
because
it
has
become
egregious
in
the
state
of
nevada.
E
Sure,
and-
and
I
don't
disagree-
I
just
I-
I
harkened
back
to
the
2017
session
when
justice
hardesty
came
in
and
and
gave
us
a
good
long
lecture
about
how
the
legislature
tends
to
over
punish.
E
We
were
talking
specifically
about
the
catch-all
category
b
felonies
that
seemed
to
make
no
sense
it's.
If
we
couldn't
decide
on
what
felony
to
make
it,
it
was
a
category
b.
Well,
we
haven't
fallen
into
that
trap,
but
for
a
business
offense,
particularly
ones
that
simply
cause
mental
or
emotional
language,
to
put
somebody
away
for
four
years
in
a
state
prison
seems
to
me
to
be
pretty
excessive
I'll,
be
interested
to
see.
I
don't
see
the
defense
bar
here
today,
but
I'll
be
interested
to
see
what
they
have
to
say.
E
Let
me
move
on
I'm
going
to
skip
over
because
senator
hardy
just
asked
one
of
my
questions.
I'm
looking
at
the
end
of
section
3,
the
75
day
state
of
emergency.
E
D
Senator
mark
kruger
for
the
record,
going
back
to
your
last
comment
as
well.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
it
was
clear
for
the
record
that
particular
people
who
want
to
take
advantage
of
robocalling
aren't
necessarily
legitimate
businesses.
These
are
people
who
want
to
try
to
attempt
using
robocalling
to
defraud
people,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
clear,
so
I
think
that
that
helps
quell
some
of
your
your
concerns
there.
D
As
to
your
specific
question
in
the
other
provision
about
the
75
days,
we
work
with
interested
stakeholders
and
again
for
for
the
robocalling,
we
did
work
with
interested
stakeholders,
including
the
defense
bar
to
accommodate
concerns
they
had,
but
but
we
also
worked
with
interested
stakeholders
and
came
upon
the
number
of
75
days,
because
it's
a
good
average
that
we
noticed
during
the
last
pandemic,
where
the
the
market,
if
you
will
corrects
and
the
people
who
would
take
advantage
of
price
gouging,
tend
to
fall
off
around
that
time
frame.
D
So
it
really
isn't
that
important,
critical
first
part
of
it.
This
gives
it
gives
the
interested
stakeholders
some
comfort,
knowing
that
it
doesn't
continue
on
through
a
year
or
two
year
period
or
however
much
time
a
certain
particular
individual
emergency
will
last.
It's
also
important
to
keep
in
mind
that
most
emergencies
are
more
limited
in
duration.
D
You
think
of
typically
fire
earthquakes
other
hazards,
and
they
are
also
concentrated
in
a
certain
geographic
area,
and
this
still
seeks
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
go
outside
of
that
geographic
area
that
might
be
impacted
for
purposes
of
price.
Gouging
concerns.
E
Sure,
and-
and
I
appreciate
that
I
did
notice
that
and-
and
I
think
that's
certainly
appropriate,
but
the
reason
I
asked
that
question,
though,
was
because
I
I
recall
two
runs
on
paper
goods,
one
immediately
after
the
beginning
of
the
pandemic
and
then
one
as
we
hit
the
second
spike,
and
there
was
a
second,
although
it
wasn't
as
severe.
There
was
a
second
run
on
paper
goods.
Would
this
bill,
then
not?
E
How
does
that
trigger
again,
if
it
I'm
trying
to
just
think
of
the
real
world
example
of
what
happened
so
on
april?
First,
when
the
run
was
really
pronounced-
and
you
know
we
would
have
been-
we
would
have
already
started
the
70
75
day
period.
E
E
D
Senator
mark
ruger
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
your
question
and
in
in
coming
up
with
concessions,
as
well
as
the
original
drop
of
the
bill.
We
provided
the
concession
in
75
days
based
upon
it,
peaked
back
and
then
look
at
the
complaints
that
we
received
during
that
second
run
on
on
paper.
The
supply
was
already
starting
to
catch
up,
so
it
wasn't
as
severe
and
we
didn't
see
the
complaints
of
price
gouging
that
we
saw
within
the
initial
period
of
the
pandemic.
So
it's
it's
a
good
start.
D
D
E
All
right
and
and
and
that's
fine,
I
I
understand
much
of
this
legislative
session-
has
been
deals
that
have
happened
outside
the
building,
so
I
understand
that
we
may
not
see
all
that
you've
accomplished
and-
and
I
must
say
that
it's
too
bad-
this
wasn't
in
place
at
the
time,
because
I
think
it
would
have
curtailed
some
of
that.
I'm
just
thinking
that
you
know
the
unforeseen
thing
is
what
happens
if
there's
another
run
after
the
emergency
has
begun
and
now
we're
we're
left
without
a
remedy.
E
So
if
there's
an
amendment,
I
I
didn't,
I
looked,
I
don't
see
an
amendment
online,
but
maybe
I
just
didn't
find
it,
but
if
there's
an
amendment
we
might
want
to
consider
providing
for
a
secondary
trigger
if
it's
deemed
necessary
the
governor.
Could
you
know
as
part
of
an
ongoing
set
of
emergency
orders?
E
E
D
Absolutely
senator
mark
ruger
for
the
record.
That's
the
provision
I
was
talking
about
where
the
bill
now
will
seek.
Previously.
It
was
just
a
misdemeanor
offense.
That's
all
we
had
yet
the
theft
or
fraud
that
occurs
under
the
separatory
practices
act
is
akin
to
a
theft
or
general
theft
or
fraud.
So
what
we
did
was
we
wanted
to
mirror
the
penalty
provision
which
is
tiered
and
tied
to
a
loss
amount
as
general
theft
or
fraud.
D
So,
instead
of
creating
brand
new
cases
that
we
would,
we
would
bring
under
the
secretary
practice
act,
we
simply
say:
okay,
now
we
have
the
ability,
depending
upon
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
the
offense,
to
bring
those
cases
either
under
the
separatory
practices
act
or
under
general
theft
abroad.
Previously
we
we
would
always
bring
them
under
general
theft
of
fraud
so
that
that's
exactly
what
we
were
getting
out
there.
E
I
and
I
I
completely
support
the
idea
if,
if
you're
taking
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
from
somebody
that
should
be
a
category
b,
felony,
I'm
just
not
quite
there
on
the
category
e
for
a
robocall.
But
what
you're
saying
is
this
gives
the
ag
an
option
to
go
after
either
offense,
as
the
ag
believes
is
appropriate,
for
the
circumstances
is
that
correct.
D
Mark
kruger
for
the
record,
senator.
I
think
you
have
it
absolutely
correct,
but
let
me
let
me
just
make
sure
that
we're
both
both
on
the
same
same
mindset
here
section
one
amends
597
nrs,
chapter
597,
that
is
the
robocalling
offense,
and
that
is
tiered,
and
it
is
less
of
a
fence
for
exactly
the
same
reasons
that
you're
talking
about,
but
it
actually
gives
some
teeth
to
violations
of
robocalls
for
people
who
would
like
to
use
robocalls
to
you,
know
perpetrate
frauds
or
any
other
crimes
against
individuals
in
nevada.
D
The
other
section
amends
the
penalty
provision
for
chapter
598,
which
is
the
deceptive
trade
practices
act,
so
you're
correct
in
that
it
aligns
the
theft
with
with
the
general
theft
provisions
and
penalties
in
nrs.
E
All
right
well,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
your
responses.
I
think
I
better
understand
the
bill.
I
I'm
still
a
little
uncomfortable
with
a
category
e
felony
for
robocalling,
but
I
certainly
understand
the
impetus
and
it's
not
gonna.
I
don't
think
it'll
keep
me
from
supporting
the
bill.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
curious
within
the
definitions
of
a
fence.
I
was
wondering
how
that's
determined.
So
if
you
have
three
separate
customers
that
you've
gouged
does
that
create
the
three
offenses
or
also
if
it's
three
separate
items,
so
you
know
you
had
three
different
things
you
bought
from
the
person
or
how
was
the
term
offense
calculated
in
this
type
of
discussion.
D
G
Section
1a,
it
says
for
the
first
offense
for
the
second
offense
for
the
third
offense
and
I'm
asking
would
that
be
three
separate
customers?
Does
that
create
three
separate
offenses
or
does
it
have
to
be
three
separate
facts
scenarios?
So
they
gouged
you
on
widgets,
then
they
gouged
you
on
a
car,
so
that
created
two
separate
offenses
or
is
it
just
literally
two
customers.
D
Yeah
and
so
mark
kruger
for
the
record
senator
so
section
one
applies
to
the
robocalls,
so
the
offenses
of
robocalling.
Now
what
we
envision
with
that
is
that
the
offense
is
that
you
perpetrated
fraud
against
an
individual
using
robocalling,
as
as
it
means
to
do
so,
and
then
the
second
offense
would
be
you
did
it
again
after
you've
gotten
punished
after
the
first
time
and
then
the
third
one
would
be
the
third
time
the
price
gouging
goes
in
the
dollar
amount,
so
it's
the
amount
of
loss.
D
So
when
we're
talking
about
price
gouging
we're
talking
about
the
provisions
we
just
talked
to
senator
figured
about,
which
is
the
tiered
amount
tied
with
general,
you
know
kind
of
aligned
in
harmony
with
general
fraud
fences,
so
it
would
be.
If
you
do
the
hundred
thousand
dollars,
you're
gonna
be
able
to
be
felony.
If
you're,
you
know
within
six
hundred
dollars,
you're
in
and
missed
things
like
that,.
G
D
Senator
mark
burger
for
the
record-
and
I
appreciate
that
question,
because
one
of
the
problems
with
robocalls
is
that
it's
very
difficult
to
find
the
person
that's
perpetrating
it.
So,
while
we
individually
as
a
state
haven't
had
the
opportunity
to
go
after
an
individual
by
ourselves,
we
have
participated
in
multi-states
and
worked
with
other
federal
and
state
partners
to
be
able
to
bring
some
of
these
robocalls
to
justice,
and
in
particular,
we
had
a
recent
case
that
stopped
quite
a
bit
of
calling
and
had
a
lot
of
conjunctive
relief.
D
D
Well
again,
senator
mark
record
the
prosecution
individually
within
the
state
hasn't
had
a
lot
of
success
and
tracked,
and
I
don't
have
an
actual
number
for
you,
because
I
don't.
I
don't
haven't
looked
back
at
a
peak
of
four
years,
but
I
can
assure
you
that
we
have
worked
with
other
state
partners
to
work
together
to
do
this
and
the
technology
is
coming.
It
is
coming
to
be
able
to
identify
who's
making.
These
calls.
G
D
Senator
mark
burger
for
the
record,
that's
correct
and
there
is
an
actual
outline
in
the
bill
that
says
we
can
look
back
to
the
peak
of
30
days
within
the
time
frame.
It's
important
to
note
here.
What
we
did
not
want
to
do
was
punish,
punish
or
any
way
make
it
price
gouging
the
supply
chain.
The
supply
chain
in
any
state
of
emergency
may
have
an
increase
in
cost
of
getting
the
actual
goods
to
the
consumers,
and
we
didn't
want
to
make
that
a
penalty
and
that's
what
we
ensured
we
did
in
this
provision.
G
So
we're
within
that
provision.
Do
you
capture
that?
Because
that's
what
I'm
concerned
with
I
mean
because,
frankly,
I'll
go
ahead
and
name
names
and
I'll
get
in
trouble,
I'm
sure
on
the
record,
but
do
I
get
to
go
after
home
depot
mix,
lumber
lows
and
everything
for
the
cost
of
a
sheet
of
plywood
right
now,
that's
to
increase
235
percent.
G
In
the
last
five
to
six
months
I
mean
that's
just
supply
chain
because
of
other
things.
That's
happened
with
the
mills
being
shut
down,
but
where,
within
this
bill,
do
I
see
that
that
is
not
going
to
be
prosecutable,
I
mean
I
look
at
farming.
I've
got
john
deere
parts
that
cost
me
twelve
hundred
dollars
three
months
ago
and
now
they're
twenty
four
hundred
dollars
on
a
turbo.
G
D
Senator
mark
for
the
record-
and
I
understand
your
concern-
and
that
was
a
concern
of
the
industry
when
we
had
a
lot
of
discussions
with
them,
and
it
was
something
that
we
made
sure
was
clear
in
the
bill,
so
it
doesn't
specifically
say
supply
chain,
but
the
definition
that
you
talked
about
is
usual
price.
If
it's
usual
price
before
it
doesn't
mean
that
the
usual
price
with
the
supply
chain
increase
gets
changed
right,
it's
still
the
usual
price.
So
if
the
supply
chain
increases,
you
can
show
is
supply
chain
increase.
D
G
G
Section
33
b1,
it
says
usual
price,
but
I'm
saying
to
me:
that's
not
very
clear
because
the
usual
price
was
the
price
prior
to
the
pandemic
or
prior
to
the
state
of
emergency
and
we've
seen
lumber
go
up,
237
percent
and
I
would
a
reasonable.
You
know
explanation
or
just
simple
reading
of
it
would
kind
of
indicate
to
me
that
the
price
used
to
be
much
lower,
and
I
appreciate.
G
D
We
understand
senator
mark
for
the
record.
If
you
check
section
three
c
d
and
e
it
will,
it
will
lay
it
out
for
you
and
I
get
it.
We
have
to
read
them
all
together,
but
it
it
attempts
to
make
sure
that
that
supply
chain
is
untouched
so
that
it's
not
affected
and
prohibited
by
this
provision.
Only
deliberate
attack
and
willful,
I
should
say,
increases
that
really
constitute
what
we
all
know
is
price
gouging.
During
the
time
of
an
emergency.
G
H
H
I
I
think
like
irs
or
ftc
allows
you
to
if
you
can
get
like
the
name
of
the
person
or
the
company
that
calls
you
you
can
at
least
put
that
number
in
and
get
it
in
the
list.
I
mean.
Are
you
guys
considering
that
at
all
I
know
there's
reporting
in
the
bill,
but
it
that
this
kind
of
allowing
folks
to
say
like
when
they
get
that
call
they
can
put
in
the
1-800
or
whatever
number
so
that
you
guys
can
track.
Those
numbers
is
that
is
that
a
conversation.
D
Senator
mark
kruger
for
the
record,
appreciate
your
question,
because
it's
something
that
we
are
working
with
other
states
and
I've
noticed
other
states
have
had
certain
software
and
builds
that
allow
that
type
of
vision.
It's
something
we've
been
discussing
internally,
as
well
as
our
work
with
other
states
and
and
in
conjunction
with
the
national
association
attorney
general,
due
to
the
pandemic,
certain
conferences
that
we
were
supposed
to
attend
and
really
work
with.
D
H
H
D
Senator
mark
ruger
for
the
record.
Initially
we
we
did
look.
We
tried
to
attempt
to
look
at
the
activities
and
complaints
that
we
received
to
set
these.
Initially
we
didn't
have
the
structure.
However,
in
discussions
with
stakeholders,
it
is
pretty
apparent
that
you
know
a
percentage
increase
for
a
smaller
amount.
A
smaller
percentage
increase
isn't
as
significant
as
an
impact
on
a
consumer
as
a
larger
increase
is
a
larger
percentage
amount.
D
So
we
we
came
and
worked
with
groups
interested
stakeholders
and
worked
with
us
internally
and
came
up
with
these,
as
we
thought
would
be
a
reasonable
and
fair
way
of
setting
it.
There
really
wasn't
a
way
to
do
it
without
setting
some
sort
of
percentage
amount
above
the
usual
price
to
capture
what
really
would
be
price
gouging
versus
what
would
be
normal,
markup.
H
And
so
my
question
in
this
same
section
before
I
go
to
another
section.
So
when
you
look
in
it's
the
offers
to
sell
right,
so
you
have
you:
have
the
person
who
sells
rents
or
offers
to
sell
or
rent
any
of
the
following
goods
or
services,
and
then
and
then
we
scale
down
the
bill.
So
when
we
talk
about
the
offers
to
sale,
talk
to
me
about
how
these
provisions
work
mechanically
and
trigger
a
penalty
for
an
offer
to
sell,
because
I
think
that's
key,
because
an
offer
is
not
accepted
right.
D
So
senator
mark
ruger
for
the
record,
and
can
you
bring
up
a
good
point?
You
know
I
will
endeavor
to
try
to
answer
this
question
as
best
I
can,
but
we're
in
a
position
of
trying
to
protect
consumers
and
in
order
to
protect
consumers
from
harm,
sometimes
in
the
in
the
space
of
price
gouging
and
offer
to
sell
when
somebody's
in
the
middle
of
an
emergency
who's
desperate
for
a
good
or
services
will
will
inevitably
end
up
paying
for
something
anyway
and
consummating
that
contract
right.
H
So
I
understand
that
I
just
wonder,
since
we've
kind
of
had
a
chance
to
see
behaviors
right,
if
we
now
can
take
a
more
calculated
approach
to
what
we've
actually
seen
it's
broad
right,
and
so,
if
you
sometimes
when
we're
trying
to
catch
a
big
fish
or
several
fish,
we
we
cast
a
broad
net.
But
the
question
is:
is
that
net
appropriate
for
the
activities
and
the
behaviors
that
we've
seen
in
this
past
year?
And
so
I
I
think
that
those
are
things
to
think
about,
and
so
I
want
to
go
to
section.
H
I
think
it's
it's
sub5,
it's
where
the
provisions
of
the
sections
it
says
it
does
not
apply,
and
then
it
says
the
transaction
for
the
sale
or
rental
of
a
good
or
service
which
occurs
wholly
outside
of
the
state
or
the
person
who
who
does
not
control
the
location
or
price
at
which
a
good
or
service
is
sold
or
rented.
H
This
this.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
here.
Number
one
goods
are
sold
wholly
outside
of
the
state,
but
we
have
technically
a
nexus
or
a
relationship
because
of
long-arm
statute
right,
and
so
this.
This
clearly
is
internet
right
to
me.
I
read
it
as
internet,
and
so
I
wonder
why.
Why
was
that
exclusion
in
play
and
then
and
then
how
do
you
determine
control
and
location
because
those
things
are
very
different?
D
Senator
mark
burger
for
the
record.
No,
he
did
not
exclude
because
of
that
reason
he
actually
excluded
these
two
provisions
based
upon
interpretation
of
other
price,
gouging
statutes
in
other
states
by
federal
courts.
There
was
a
lot
of
litigation
that
evolved
after
the
price
gougings
regarding
price
gathering
statutes
in
other
states.
That
litigation
gave
us
guidance
to
say
what
we
should
include
and
what
we
shouldn't
include
based
upon
interstate
commerce
and
other
reasons.
D
And
mark
trigger,
for
the
record,
senator
the
language
of
the
bill
is
intended
to
capture
internet
sales,
but
that
are
done
and
consummated
within
the
state.
Those
particular
exclusions
are
for
those
types
of
transactions
that
occur
hopefully
outside
of
the
state.
So
we
saw
a
few
of
those
in
the
complaints
that
came
through
and
those
are
the
ones
that
were
addressed
by
these
federal
decisions.
H
Okay,
so
okay,
I
just
I
I
hear
you,
but
I
feel
like
that.
That
definition
of
wholly
outside
of
the
state
is
very
broad,
because
I
think
that
there's
there
are
sellers
that
have
a
relationship
and
but
they're
holy
outside
of
the
state,
and
but
we
can
leave
that
for
another
day,
the
section
on
it's
b
sub
3,
which
is
on
page
5
of
the
bill
lines
29
through
35.
H
This
is
the
part
where
it
says
if
a
person
did
not
sell
or
rent
or
offer
to
sell
or
rent
a
good
or
service
in
an
emergency
within
the
30
days,
and
so
this
is
in
that
usual
price,
where
you're
trying
to
you're
doing
a
comparison
here-
and
my
question
is:
who
is
doing
the
comparison
on
whether
or
not
the
usual
price
occurred
within
that
time
frame?
And
now
this
is
in
excess.
H
D
Thank
you
senator
marketer,
for
the
record,
so
this
particular
provision
looks
at
where
there
wasn't
the
sale
of
a
particular
item
or
service
in
a
30-day
look
back
period.
So
if
there
wasn't
a
sale,
then
you
have
to
figure
out
a
way
to
determine
that
price
and
that's
what
this
provision
does
as
far
as
the
mechanics
of
it
all.
Yes,
that's
what
we
did
during
the
during
the
pandemic,
the
initial
time
frame.
D
When
we
received
these
complaints,
we
worked
with
these
companies
to
determine
whether
or
not
it
was
a
supply
chain
increase
or
whether
or
not
it
was
a
price
gouge.
When
we
got
a
complaint
and
we
we
did
a
very
neutral
and
fair
look
at
these
things
and
for
the
most
part
we
we
had
very
good
reception
and
cooperation.
H
And
so,
and
thank
you
for
that
answer
because
I
because
I
because
you
you
say
supply
chain-
and
I
think
this
is
kind
of
stepping
into
what
senator
settlemyre
was
saying.
But
typically
you
can
have
a
business
who
there
is
a.
There
is
an
increase
on
a
good,
because
it
is
it's
popular
so
and
so
you're
saying
that
if
you
have
an
increase
on
a
good
that
is
popular,
but
it
happens
to
fall
within
the
pandemic.
H
You
then
come
under
scrutiny
depending
on
the
range
of
that
cost,
and
I
guess,
since
you
guys
had
this
conversation
during
the
pandemic,
how
did
you
judge
whether
or
not
that
cost
increase
was
appropriate
based
on
the
business
decision
of
the
company,
or
in
this
case
it
could
have
been
the
store
manager
right
and
so
how?
What
did
those
conversations?
H
What
were
they
like
when
you
started
to
examine
true
change
versus
excess
and
price
gouging,
because
I
think
that
there
is
a
distinction
there,
and
I
think
that
we,
when
you
have
language
you
need
to
make
the
distinction
between
a
business
model,
choice
of
a
popular
item
that
you're
saying.
Oh,
this
is
flying
off
the
shelves
and
I
would
like
to
charge
seventeen
dollars
versus
fifteen
dollars
and
I'm
now
charging
fifty
dollars
for
something
that
was
fifteen
dollars.
D
Absolutely
senator
and-
and
the
answer
is
actually
twofold:
first,
we
did
look
back
and
worked
with
businesses.
It
involved
looking
at
spreadsheets
and
saying
this
is
what
I
paid.
This
is
what
I
paid.
This
is
a
reasonable
increase,
for
this
is
what
the
supply
chain
increase
was
and
why
I
passed
this.
This
cost
on
to
the
consumer.
That's
the
first
question
the
second
piece
of
this,
and
I
have
to
keep
reminding
myself
sometimes
as
well,
but
this
is
tied
to
a
pandemic.
D
Not
only
is
it
tied
to
the
pandemic,
it's
tied
to
the
geographic
location
of
it
and
the
impact,
so
you
have
a
fear
level
right.
It
also
includes
only
those
consumers,
goods
or
services
that
are
bought
or
rendered
primarily
for
personal,
family
or
household
purposes,
medical
supplies
and
service
used
for
peer
care
and
mitigation,
treatment
and
prevention
of
any
illness
or
disease
and
services
related
to
the
repair
and
reconstruction
of
property,
or
any
other
good
service
that
are
commonly
used
in
responding
to
the
type
of
emergency.
D
These
provisions
are
limiting
in
nature,
and
so
you
may
have
a
popular
item
that
could
go
up.
Let's
say
a
toy
around
the
holidays
that
goes
up
and
tries.
This
wouldn't
apply
to
it.
It's
not
a
necessity.
It's
not
something!
That's
related
to
the
emergency,
so
those
types
of
sales
could
continue
and
go
up
if
the
regular
price
of
lumber,
for
example,
or
drywall
or
a
good
for
a
tractor,
goes
up,
but
it's
not
related
to
the
emergency.
It's
not
even
encaptured
within
this
bill.
H
Thank
you
for
that,
and
so
I'll
move
to
a
different
section
on
section
five,
because
this
is
the
part
around
minors
which
I
thought
was
super
interesting,
and
this
is
new
language
around
I
and
so
well,
there's
a
couple
things
because
I
was
happy
and
then
I
was
weirded
out
so
so
the
thing
is
in
section
5
line
14,
where
we
have
this
well.
H
Because
there
are
situations-
and
I
think
everybody
experiences
their
first
year
of
college
when
somebody
went
out
and
tried
to
give
you
a
credit
card
and
they
had
a
pack
of
m
ms
with
it,
and
you
were
like
hey.
I
want
the
m,
ms,
because
I'm
hungry
and
I'm
a
college
student
and
then
you
sign
on
the
dotted
line
for
credit
cards
you
can
pay
for.
The
question
is:
are
they
in.
D
So
mark
kruger
for
the
record
senator
what
we're
doing
is
trying
to
capture
those
types
of
trade
practices
that
are
that
occur
for
minors
in
the
same
lander
that
it
goes
after
seniors
or
the
elderly,
as
existing
statute
provides
and,
and
I'd
like
to
draw
your
attention
to
the
actual
litigation
that
we've
charged,
where
we've
alleged
that
certain
manufacturers
of
pharmaceutical
products
had
targeted
seniors
and
that
elderly
people
in
offenses
of
the
chapter.
So
it
would
also
allow
us
to
capture
those
same
offenses
against
minors.
H
And
thank
you
for
that,
because
I
guess
that
you
know
immediately
when
I
thought
about
the
section
number
one
contract
law
doesn't
allow
a
minor
to
contract
right,
so
there's
there's
that
remedy
already
on
top
it's
been
around
for
a
while
and
then
and
then
I
wanted
to
know
about
the
because
I
felt
these
parts
were
subjective
in
sub
e,
where,
if
the
conduct
of
the
person
caused
the
minor
person
to
suffer
right,
and
then
you
have
this
mental
and
emotional
anguish
and
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
okay,
you
have
if
a
court
or
the
director
or
his
or
her
designee
finds
etc.
H
You
know,
is
the
court
making
the
determination
of
mental
or
emotional
anguish?
Who
who
who
is?
Who
is?
Who
is
making
that
determination
number
one?
And
then,
when
you
say,
loss
of
property
that
had
been
set
aside
for
educational
or
for
personal
family
care
and
maintenance?
H
D
D
After
making
that
determination,
we
would
assert
and
prove
up
these
particular
pieces
of
it,
but
ultimately
the
court
would
be
the
one
who
would
have
to
decide
based
upon
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
each
case.
H
And
how?
But
how
do
you
prove
up
economic
well-being,
any
other
interference
with
with
the
economic
well-being
of
a
minor
person?
I
mean
this.
These
are
not
situations
where
you
know
the
kid
somebody
took
my
lunch
money.
These
are
situations
where
I'm
trying
to
see
a
17
year
old
or
or
my
kid
who
happens
to
be
special.
H
Where
he's
saying
you
know,
I
thought
that
these
people
were
legitimate
and
I
gave
them.
You
know
500,
and
I
thought
I
was
going
to
get
a
ps5
and
I
and
I
ended
up
getting
a
bag
of
rocks.
The
question
is:
is
that
an
interference
with
his
economic
well-being,
because
he
had
wanted
a
ps5
for
like
six
months
and
then
he
finally
got
the
opportunity,
and
then
he
got
swindled.
D
Senator
mark
kruger
for
the
record
and-
and
I
appreciate
your
example
of
an
individual
item
and
a
potential
deceptive
act
on
an
individual
basis.
However,
the
you,
you
could
apply
any
factual
situation
and
something
like,
for
example,
in
one
of
these
very
popular
video
games,
where
you
could
take
advantage
of
a
miner
by
advertising
certain.
Oh,
you
can
get
certain
credits,
but
then
not
giving
them.
The
credits
and
the
miner
is,
is
purchasing
and
being
deceived
about
it
from
an
economic
standpoint.
D
So
there's
a
lot
of
other
examples
that
you
could
throw
into
this.
That
would
show
that
be
able
to
be
proved
up
under
this
particular
provision,
and-
and
it
just
depends
on
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
each
case
as
we
allege
them
in
building
our
investigation
and
conducting
our
investigation
and
building
our
case.
H
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
I
just,
I
just
think
it's
an
interesting
provision
because
you
have
damages
tied
to
it
and
I
feel,
like
you've,
created
a
new
tort
remedy
and
it's
hard
to
prove
mental
distress.
And
so
now
you
have
interference
with
economic
well-being
and
I'm
not.
I
didn't
see
the
definition
of
that
and
if
it
is
defined
currently
in
statute,
then
I
I'd
be
very
interested
to
to
understand
how
it
works
and
the
thresholds
and
and
how
we
prove
that
right.
H
H
You
see
what
I'm
saying
like.
I
want
to
see
your
first
court
case,
because
it's
going
to
be
interesting,
you
need
to
just
dial
me
up.
Sorry,
madam
chair,
I
have
one
last
question
that
I'm
done.
H
So
it
was
on
the
no
time
limit.
You
don't
have
a
statute
of
limitations.
This
was
in
section
25,
and
so
I
wanted
to
know
how,
because
it
says
this
is
well,
it's
section
3,
3.5
and
5
of
this
act.
So
that
includes
the
minor
and
then
it
includes
the
other
parts
that
the
rest
of
the
committee
members
were
asking
about.
H
So
you
don't
have
a
limitation
on
this
action,
so
someone
could
bring
this
action
I
october
of
2022
and
then
allege
something
that
happened
this
month,
and
so
I
need
to
understand
how
that
works
and
and
how
does
a
person
factually
prove
up
an
incident
that
may
have
happened
today
and
then
walk
backwards?
Is
this
retroactive.
D
Senator
martin
for
the
record,
it's
not
retroactive,
it
would
be
prospective
in
application.
However,
this
is
important
for
our
multi-state
work
and
several
states
have
adopted
this
similar
language,
where
we
leave
the
statute
of
limitations
for
a
private
right
of
action
for
criminal
action
conduct
or
administrative
passions
currently
where
they
are
at
four
years.
But
this
particular
provision
is
our
multi-state
work.
D
It
is
the
big
heavy-duty
litigations
and
investigations
that
really
take
a
peek
back
in
a
lot
of
time
to
be
able
to
see
whether
or
not
a
particular
conduct
had
been
occurring
for
a
longer
period
of
time
and
make
sure
that
we
cover
that
period
of
time.
There's
been
quite
a
few
investigations
that
are
conducted
over
a
longer
period
of
time
as
well.
The
investigations
themselves
take
some
time
very
many
years
to
be
able
to
conclude,
so
it
really
is
heavily
focused
on
the
attorney
general's
multi-state
investigation,
type
practices.
H
I
have
had
now
a
lot
of
analogies
and
if
you
would
like
to
ask
a
question
on
section
31,
then
you
would
take
care
of
my
very
last
question
that
I
was
going
to
save
for
any
other
day.
But
I
turn
it
over
to
you
for
real,
though
okay.
So
in
section
31,
you
have
the
consumer
advocate
piece
where
they
have
access
to
all
records
in
the
possession
of
any
agency
board
of
commission
of
the
state
that
he
or
she
determines
are
necessary
for
the
exercise
of
powers
in
subsection
one.
So
subsection
one.
H
It's
super
broad
power.
So
I
really
need
you
to
help
understand
because
I
feel
like
there
should
be
limitations
on
this
for
a
consumer
advocate,
because
you
don't
know
what
those
records
are
and
who
is.
Who
is
the
oversight
person
over
the
consumer
advocate
who's
kind
of
the
watchdog
to
say
that
I
think
what
you're
determining
are
necessary
may
not
be
within
the
scope
legal
scope
of
what
you
probably
can
have,
because
you're
pretty
much
giving
them
plenary
power
right
to
then
go
in
and
dig
and
and
then
have
access
to
records.
D
Senator
mark
ruger
for
the
record,
and
let
me
I
think,
give
you
some
comfort
here.
This
provision
is
specifically
included
because
we,
as
the
consumer
advocate
and
the
attorney
general,
have
foreign
authority
to
bring
causes
of
action
in
support
of
protecting
the
public
and
consumers
right
residents
of
the
state.
So
when
we
do
so,
we
are
able
to
assert
claims
on
behalf
of
any
other
agency
border
commission
and-
and
we've
done,
that
in
litigation,
we
are
currently
litigating.
D
The
caveat
here
is
that
nowhere
in
this
process
does
it
anywhere
take
away
the
confidentiality
provisions
that
would
apply
in
any
portion
of
this
all
the
way
and
everything
that
we
gain
through
an
investigation
remains
statutorily
confidential,
so
any
kind
of
even
privileges
or
statutory
authority.
To
keep
things
confidential
would
always
be
retained,
but
it
is
absolutely
a
necessary
component
to
ensure
the
smooth
litigation
of
claims
on
behalf
of
the
state
for
this
provision
to
be
involved.
F
C
All
of
those
words
denote
that
if
I,
if
I
could
use
senator
centelmeyer's
privilege
of
naming
people,
if
I
buy
something
at
walmart
and
I
go
to
neiman
marcus,
I
think
it's
unfair
so
that
the
arbitrary
nature
of
the
the
words
are
concerning
to
me
and
then
one
of
the
other
challenges
we
have
is
in
political
seasons.
D
Star
senator
mark
rigger
for
the
writer
to
your
point
about
unfair.
This
is
the
nevada,
unfair
and
deceptive
trade
practices
backs
we're
talking
about
so
the
term
unfair.
Well,
well,
the
point
is
well
taken
these
terms,
weren't
even
included
in
the
law,
so
including
them
in
the
law
and
allowing
it.
It
helps
us
to
capture
those
types
of
transactions
that
are
particularly
offensive
and
would
categorically
fall
within
that
language.
D
It
is,
there
is
a
level
of
expression
in
prosecutorial
discretion
that
when
you
look
at
this
to
find
out,
okay,
does
this
fall
in
the
meaning
of
it,
just
like
other
areas
of
the
law.
Have
that
and
I'll
give
you
an
example
it
it
helps
to
capture
things
like
where
you
have
material
fraud
where
an
individual
is
using
a
different
language
to
perpetrate
and
say:
hey,
I'm
able
to
do
these
services,
but
really
they're
not
able
to
do
their
services
and
they
unfairly
take
advantage
of
that
individual.
D
E
Just
one
question:
it's
a
follow-up
on
something
that
both
senators,
neil
and
settlemyer
were
were
getting
at
and-
and
this
is
something
I
didn't
see
before,
but
I
think
it's
a
good
point
that
I'd
like
to
see
if
we
can
clear
up
on
the
record
when
we
talk
about
the
and
I'm
looking
at
section
ones
or
I'm
sorry,
section
three
sub
three:
where
we're
talking
about
or
I'm
sorry
sub,
two,
where
we're
talking
about
price
that
is
grossly
in
excess
of
a
usual
price.
E
And
then
you
had
mentioned
the
30
day.
Look
back.
It
occurred
to
me
on
second
reading
that
this
seems
to,
although
it
says,
including
without
limitation,
the
price
of
the
good
or
service
prevailing
in
the
emergency
or
disaster
area
in
the
30
days
before,
and
then
we
overlapped
the
the
fact
patterns
that
they
were
suggesting.
E
My
first
read
on
this
was
that
that's
unlimited,
that's
one
of
the
circumstances,
but
this
would
be
where
we
could
assume
or
read
into
it
that
that's
one
of
many
conditions
that
we
would
look
at
and
the
other
conditions
would
be.
The
supply
chain
effects
the
the
costs
of
the
the
component
parts
of
these
things,
but
I
think
we
might
want
to
make
that
stronger.
E
I
think
we
want
to
make
that
clearer,
because
this
discussion
brought
up
the
fact
that
some
people
are
not
going
to
read
it
that
way,
and
if
this
is
a
criminal
action,
that's
going
to
be
up
to
a
jury
and
the
jury.
Instructions
will
will
have
a
great
deal
of
of
influence
on
that,
but
it
I'm
assuming
it
well.
First.
Is
that
the
the
assumption
that
was
my
first
reading?
What
you
were
talking
about
when
you
said,
there's
a
provision
that
would
allow
for
supply
chain
reactions
that
wouldn't
then
make
them
violative
of
this
act.
E
D
Mark
ruger
for
the
record
yeah
we
didn't.
We
already
did
several
amendments
to
this
bill,
so
we
don't
have
another
amendment
out
there
but
you're
correct
and
that
this
provision
is
supposed
to
limit
the
amount
of
time
you
can
look
back,
so
you
don't
have
to
look
back
like
60
days
and
say:
oh,
wait.
You
you're
price
gouging
within
the
constraints
of
this
bill.
D
If
you
look
back
on
the
30-day
period
with
offer,
it
was
a
reasonable
period
to
see.
Okay,
this
is
the
usual
price,
that's
being
sold.
We
we
didn't
find
that
there
was
any
confusion,
but
I'm
trying
to
clear
it
up
if
there
is
any
that
it
does
not
include
the
supply
chain-
and
this
is
one
of
those
factors
that
go
to
that,
so
that
if
there's
a
regular
normal
supply
chain,
increase
can
be
passed
on.
E
All
right,
I
appreciate
that,
and-
and
one
thing
we
have
seen
in
lumber-
is
that
we've
seen
significant.
You
know:
100
percent
increases
within
a
30-day
time
period
and
the
local
manufacturer
would
have
no
way
of
recouping
that
cost.
E
If
we
were
limited
to
a
30-day
look
back,
so
I
would
suggest
and
and
request
that
we
tighten
this
language
up
to
make
sure
that
it's
clear
that
supply
chain
impacts
are
not
intended
to
be
included
in
the
definition
of
gouging,
but
that's
it.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
Okay,
I
I
have
a
couple-
and
I
I
like
for
mr
keen
to
to
weigh
in
on
some
of
the
some
of
the
opportunities
we
may
have
for
clarification
for
some
of
the
questions
that
have
taken
place
and
I'm
thinking
here
back
in
2005.
A
I
think
it
was
hurricane
katrina
and
I
have
some
family
members
that
are
in
houston
before
they
announced
hurricane
hadn't
hadn't
hit,
but
before
they
announced
that
hurricane
was
coming.
I
think
my
sister
was
like
two
dollars
of
got.
Two
dollar
gas
was
two
dollars
a
gallon
and
within
20
minutes
of
announcing
the
gas
was
over
five
dollars
in
some
areas,
and
you
had
people
that
were
lined
up
trying
to
get
out
of
trying
to
get
out
of
the
eye
of
the
storm.
A
So
that's
one
of
the
things
when
I
think
about
price
gouging,
that's
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
about,
and
then
I
guess
to
to
go
to
vice
chair
neil
said
it's
difficult
to
prove
mental
anguish
when
you're
trying
to
put
it
into
law-
and
I
think
we
could
probably
get
a
real
good
definition
of
that.
If
everybody
shows
up
again
on
friday
and
starts,
recording
and
you'll
see
mental
anguish,
so
so
just
a
joke,
I
think,
was
that
a
good
joke.
Okay,
all
right!
A
Mr
kane,
can
you
do
a
point
of
clarification
here
and
what
I'm
going
to
ask
one
of
us
everybody
to
do
is
I
we're
we're
running
out
of
time
here
and
so
I'd
like
for
mr
keane
to
work
with
those
of
you
who
have
some
questions
or
issues
and
let's
see,
if
we
can,
we
can
hammer
them
out
today,
if
possible.
But
mr
king,
can
you
clarify
some
of
the
points
that
were
raised.
I
Thank
you,
chair
spearman,
for
the
record.
Will
king
committee
council,
one
of
the
things
that
occurred
to
me,
as
I
was
listening
to
the
discussions,
was
that
in
section
three
and
in
particular
section
three,
it's
page
four
line:
twenty-two
it's
beginning
of
subsection.
Three,
the
the
language
there
is
written
in
the
negative,
which
makes
it
a
little
bit
difficult
to
read
if
you're
reading
it
quickly.
I
So
what
what
subsection
3
does
is
it
tells
you
when
a
price
for
a
good
or
service
is
not
grossly
in
excess
of
the
usual
price?
So
if
you
are
someone
who's
selling
a
good
and
you
can
show
that
your
price
falls
into
any
of
the
delineated
circumstances,
3a
3b,
3c
3d,
you
don't
have
to
qualify
for
all
of
them.
You
just
have
to
qualify
for
any
one,
and
then
your
price
is
not
grossly
in
excess.
So
you
are
not
in
violation
of
this
section
and
one
particular
point
was
brought
up.
I
I
don't
know
about
any
particular
business
in
its
supply
chain
circumstance,
but
if
there's
a
particular
price
of
plywood
and
it's
being
sold
by
the
retailer
at
an
extra
high
cost,
because
that's
what
it
cost
the
retailer
to
buy
it,
then
if
I
were
trying
to
defend
that
retailer
who's
accused
of
violating
this,
I
would
look
to
subsection
three
paragraph,
paragraph
c,
and
that's
where
it
says
that
if
the
retailer
is
charging
10
or
less
above
the
sum
of
the
cost
to
the
person
and
the
normal
markup
for
a
good
or
service.
I
Even
if
505
dollars
is
a
ridiculously
high
price
for
a
piece
of
plywood
seller
would
not
be
in
violation
of
this
section
and
and
there's
a
number
of
other
provisions,
all
of
which
address
other
circumstances
which
may
arise
for
a
particular
seller
and
all
the
seller
has
to
do
is
make
sure
that
the
seller
is
falling
into
one
of
those
categories
and
the
seller
is
okay.
I
That
was
just
a
small
point
on
that,
and
I
can
certainly
I
will
reach
out
to
people
and
work
on
concerns
about
tightening
up
this
language
on
top
of
it.
But
I
just
thought
I
would
point
that
out
to
the
extent
that
wasn't
clear
in
the
previous
conversation
and
then
as
far
as
section
5,
subsection
2e,
some
of
those
terms
are,
you
know,
are
subjective,
but
many
of
them
appear
in
the
law,
such
as
emotional
anguish.
I
Those
type
of
terms
appear
in
other
circumstances
and
and
the
courts
have
tests
that
they
put
together,
and
I
would
say,
on
top
of
that,
for
all
of
these
sections
that
we're
putting
in
for
all
of
chapter
598,
the
director
of
bni,
as
well
as
the
commissioner
of
consumer
affairs,
which
I
believe
right
now
pursuant
to
statute,
is
a
deputy
director
designated
by
the
director
bni.
I
They
have
ample
reg
authority
and
there
are
regulations
carrying
out
some
of
these
provisions
and
so
to
the
extent
that
any
of
these
items
need
to
be
fleshed
out
or
described
in
more
detail.
That
can
always
be
done
through
regulation.
I
C
C
You
then
have
to
understand
that
your
inventory
has
to
be
replaced
and
the
inventory
that
has
to
be
replaced
is
probably
going
to
be
at
a
grossly
elevated
price,
because
the
supplier
or
the
wholesaler
is
going
to
have
to
or
will
charge
more
for
the
renewal
of
your
inventory.
So
your
business
has
to
pay
more
charge
more
in
order
to
be
able
to
get
their
inventory
back
up
to
speed,
so
they
can
sell
again.
C
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
I
guess
to
your
point.
This
was
maybe
about
april
may
last
year
when
there's
no
lysol
on
the
shelves
and
hand
sanitizers,
and
I
ordered
some
on
online
and
the
well
I
saw
the
candle
I
saw
was
like
four
dollars
and
fifty
cents,
but
the
handling
charge
was
ten
dollars.
A
Alrighty,
so
seeing
no
additional
questions
from
the
committee,
let's
see
if
anyone
here
in
the
room
is
in
support
of
assembly
bill.
A
B
Ebay
has
a
zero
tolerance
for
price
gouging
on
their
marketplace,
and
since
early
february,
2020
they've
prohibit
prohibited
products
marketed
with
the
term
corona
virus
which
violated
their
policies
against
making
unsubstantiated
health
claims.
We
look
forward
to
working
with
the
ag's
office
and
the
office
of
consumer
protection.
A
Anyone
else
in
the
room
support
okay,
broadcast,
let's
go
to
the
phones
and
we'll
do
15
minutes
per
and
two
minutes
per
individual,
starting
with
those
in
support.
J
A
Let's
go
to
opposition.
J
F
On
behalf
of
the
retail
association
of
nevada,
we
appreciate
the
ongoing
conversations
that
we
had
with
the
attorney
general's
office.
But
unfortunately
we
disagree
with
the
policy
and
we
have
concerns
most
emergencies,
don't
last
75
days.
So
the
provision
that
limits
this
to
75
days
would
only
apply
to
these
extreme
situations.
F
What
this
is
going
to
do
is
increase
the
cost
of
compliance
for
a
business,
to
have
to
be
able
to
prove
on
every
single
price
increase
on
every
single
item
that
there
was
a
reason
for
that
price
increase,
and
we
believe
that
that
cost
is
not
in
proportion
to
the
hearing
or
to
the
testimony
that
we
heard
in
the
assembly
side
that
the
attorney
general's
office
had
received
dozens
of
complaints
since
the
beginning
of
the
pandemic
in
march
to
february,
and
we
believe
that
this
is
kind
of
an
overreaction
to
those
issues
that
that
is
not
a
sufficient
sample.
F
F
These
are
ongoing
issues
that,
beginning
that,
first
weekend
of
the
pandemic
in
march,
we
saw
the
entire
foot
traffic
that
we
would
normally
see
during
a
christmas
season
during
four
days,
it's
chaotic
and
for
a
business
to
have
to
go
ahead
and
have
to
report
and
comply
and
being
able
to
prove
why
their
prices
are
increased
for
such
a
long
period
of
time.
We
must
register
our
opposition
to
the
bill
and
we
would
ask
you
to
do
so
as
well.
Thank
you,
ma'am.
I
Yes,
thank
you,
chairman
spearman.
I
just
wanted
to
respond
to
senator
hardy.
I
think
senator
hardy
raises
an
excellent
point
about
inventory
that
might
have
cost
something
in
the
past
and
the
replacing
of
that
inventory
would
cost
a
lot
more
and
that's
not
addressed
by
section
three
subsection.
Three
c
one
can
make
an
argument.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
mr
kruger,
do
you
have
any
closing
comments.
D
Just
briefly,
a
marker
for
the
record,
thank
you
chair.
We,
while
we're
disappointed
with
the
opposition.
Today
we
worked
with
the
stakeholders
in
good
faith
and
we
did
make
significant
concessions
to
address
all
the
concerns.
D
The
the
idea
of
tying
the
price
gouging
effect
to
a
declaration
of
emergency
gave
a
trigger
point.
It
may
not
be
a
perfect
solution,
but
it
is
definitely
a
good
solution
and
it
is
one
that
is
reasonable
in
light
of
the
intent
and
the
intent
again
is
that
this
only
lasts
as
long
as
the
emergency
lasts.
D
It
doesn't
affect
the
supply
chain
and
it's
intended
to
address
those
sellers,
goods
and
services
who
take
advantage
of
people's
desperation
during
an
emergency
that
desperate
need
to
get
critical
things
that
are
necessary
to
address
the
emergency
and
that's
what
it
does
and,
as
mr
keane
also
pointed
out,
it
does
provide
those
exceptions
for
those
supply
chain
examples
that
we
talked
extensively
about
today.
I
think
every
member
of
this
committee
for
your
your
wonderful
questions
and
the
engaging
conversation.
We
appreciate
it
and
look
forward
to
your
support
on
the
bill.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
and
I've
asked
this
before.
I've
asked
our
legal
counsel
to
work
with
the
questions,
those
persons
who
had
questions
and
with
you,
mr
krueger,
let's
see
if
we
can
can
get
some
language
that
works
and
addresses
the.
I
think
it
was
mr
walker
that
says
like
a
half
a
billion
skus,
let's
see
how
we
can
maybe
tighten
that
up.
A
A
J
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
with
that
we
will
not
adjourn,
but
we
will
be
in
recess
until
the
call
of
the
chair.
Thank
you
so
much.