WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 44

Prohibits manipulating the price of an essential good or service in this State. (BDR 52-503)

2025 Regular Session

AB 44 would make deceptive pricing of essential goods or services a restraint-of-trade violation punishable by state enforcement.

Vetoed by the Governor.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 44

AB 44 — Summary (Prohibits manipulating the price of an essential good or service)

Status: Vetoed by the Governor (10/01/2025).
Introduced: 12/02/2024. Sponsor: Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor (on behalf of the Attorney General). BDR: 52‑503.

Purpose / intent

AB 44 adds “manipulating the price of an essential good or service in this State” to Nevada’s list of unlawful contracts/combinations/conspiracies in restraint of trade (NRS 598A.060). The stated goal is to deter deceptive or market‑manipulating conduct that causes sharp, unexplained price increases in goods and services essential to daily life.

Key provisions

  • Adds a new prohibited activity to NRS 598A.060: knowingly engaging in a deceptive trade practice that (a) is intended to mislead consumers or manipulate a market for an essential good or service, and (b) causes a price increase that (i) does not reflect basic forces of supply and demand and (ii) results in a person paying, over a 1‑year period, a price increase equal to or exceeding the category’s five‑year average annual percentage change as reported in the BEA Personal Consumption Expenditures by State (SAPCE3) for Nevada.
  • Defines “essential good or service” as goods/services needed on a daily/recurring basis for livelihood, listing categories such as food, medicine, housing, utilities, transportation, telecom and internet, etc., mapped to BEA PCE categories.
  • Carves out exceptions: conduct expressly authorized/regulated by a state or federal administrative agency; certain transportation/transportation network company matters; resort hotels (and other narrow statutory exceptions).
  • Enforcement and remedies: the provision was placed among the restraint‑of‑trade offenses that the Attorney General can investigate and prosecute under Chapter 598A. Later drafts expressly state the manipulation provision does not create a private right of action against private parties.
  • Penalty context: by adding the activity to NRS 598A.060 the conduct becomes subject to the existing enforcement framework for unlawful combinations in restraint of trade (which can include criminal and civil penalties under Nevada law).

Who would be affected

  • Retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, service providers, landlords/property managers, pharmacies and other health‑care supply chain actors, fuel retailers, utilities/telecom providers and many other businesses whose products/services fall into the enumerated “essential” categories.
  • Government regulators (Attorney General) responsible for investigation and enforcement.
  • Exemptions preserve regulated pricing and certain transportation/hotel activities.

Major amendments and clarifications

  • Early versions used a dollar threshold ($750/30‑day or $9,000/year); later amendments replaced dollar thresholds with the BEA SAPCE3 five‑year average annual percentage change metric.
  • The standard was narrowed to require deceptive trade practice conduct involving intent to mislead or purposefully manipulate markets.
  • Sponsors removed/limited a private right of action to reduce potential litigation by private plaintiffs.

Stakeholder concerns and criticisms

  • Business groups (housing developers, pharmacies, fuel retailers, telecom, convenience stores, trade associations) argued the measure is vague, could punish ordinary market price changes, and would chill investment or be preempted by federal regulation (e.g., FCC for telecom).
  • Pharmaceutical and generic drug industry and trade groups raised Commerce Clause and supply‑chain complexity concerns and warned of costly litigation exposure.
  • Housing and multifamily industry warned it would operate as de‑facto rent control and worsen housing supply.

Legislative history (selected)

  • Passed both houses with amendments (Assembly and Senate readings and amendments through May–Sept 2025). Enrolled and presented to Governor 09/22/2025.
  • Governor vetoed the measure on 10/01/2025; consideration of veto pending per legislative procedure.

Practical impact

If enacted as amended, AB 44 would have given Nevada’s Attorney General a new tool to pursue deceptive conduct that produces above‑normal, category‑level price increases for goods/services deemed essential. The outcome would depend heavily on rule‑making, how BEA categories are applied in practice, prosecutorial priorities, and court interpretation of “does not reflect basic forces of supply and demand.” Opponents argued the law’s complexity and breadth risk regulatory uncertainty, litigation, and unintended economic consequences.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.