In a recent political development in Nevada, Governor Joe Lombardo vetoed Assembly Bill 44, a legislative effort aimed at curbing alleged price-fixing practices on essential goods and services championed by Nevada Attorney General (AG) Aaron D. Ford.
A statement by the Nevada attorney general’s office issued in May after the bill’s passage through both houses of the Nevada Legislature described the proposed law as “one of AG Ford’s core goals during the 2025 Legislative Session.” In the statement, Ford said the bill “gives my office the tools we need to fight predatory practices that strain folks’ wallets and directly affect their bottom line.”
In a letter to Nevada’s secretary of state regarding the veto, Lombardo labeled the bill as “government overreach” and criticizing its broad language, which he argued could lead to subjective and inconsistent enforcement. In the letter, Lombardo said the bill “fails to recognize that prices reflect complex supply chain dynamics and market forces-not merely alleged predatory intent.”
According to Ford’s statement, the bill (which reportedly passed with only Democratic support and all Republicans opposed) would not have prevented businesses from adjusting prices due to normal market forces, but rather prohibited knowingly deceptive price increases that violate the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
If it had been signed into law, Assembly Bill 44 would have enhanced the Nevada AG’s power to conduct investigations and bring enforcement actions under the Nevada Unfair Trade Practice Act related to the “manipulation” of the price for an “essential good or service.”
Specifically, under the proposed law, illegal price manipulation occurred when a person, alone or with others, knowingly engaged in any deceptive trade practice that: (1) is done with the intent to mislead consumers or to manipulate the market for an essential good or service to the public’s detriment; and (2) was intended to and did cause the price of an essential good or service to increase in a way that: (a) did not reflect basic supply and demand forces, and (b) resulted in a person paying, over a one-year period, an amount for the good or service that represents a percentage increase equal to or greater than the average percentage increase for the most recent five-year average annual percentage change for that category (as set forth in the Personal Consumption Expenditures by State for Nevada, published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis).
Assembly Bill 44 defined “essential good or service” as “any good or service which is needed on a daily or recurring basis for the livelihood of a person” in one of nine categories: (1) food and beverages purchased for off-premises consumption; (2) clothing and footwear; (3) gasoline and other energy goods; (4) pharmaceuticals and other medical products; (5) housing; (6) household utilities; (7) ground transportation; (8) telecommunication services; and (9) internet access.
Notably, however, the bill exempted conduct relating to rates, fares, allowances, or charges of a transportation network company and conduct relating to prices charged by a resort hotel. According to the AG’s statement, the rates charged by those excluded providers “are already regulated by governmental agencies.”
The bill specifically prohibited private lawsuits for price manipulation and did not otherwise introduce new penalties or enforcement mechanisms beyond those already provided in the Nevada Unfair Trade Practices Act. However, Assembly Bill 44 would have empowered Nevada’s AG to investigate and act against individuals or entities suspected of manipulating prices of essential goods or services. This authority would have included criminal prosecution or civil actions for injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and civil penalties.
Why It Matters
A significant aspect of the bill was its focus on the rental housing market, which has been an increasing source of state AG scrutiny nationally. The bill’s failure also does not preclude Nevada’s AG from investigating perceived violations of the Nevada Unfair Trade Practice Act in relation to any of the nine categories of essential goods or services outlined in Assembly Bill 44.
Indeed, companies involved in consumer-facing business activities in Nevada that relate to those categories would be advised to review and adjust their pricing and marketing strategies to avoid any appearance of manipulation as it would have been defined under the bill.
*Senior Government Relations Manager
