California 2021-2022 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB1901

Introduced
2/9/22  
Introduced
2/9/22  
Refer
3/24/22  
Refer
3/24/22  
Report Pass
3/24/22  
Report Pass
3/24/22  
Refer
3/28/22  
Refer
3/28/22  
Report Pass
4/19/22  
Refer
4/21/22  
Refer
4/21/22  
Engrossed
5/5/22  
Refer
5/5/22  
Refer
5/5/22  
Refer
5/18/22  
Refer
5/18/22  
Report Pass
6/14/22  
Report Pass
6/14/22  
Refer
6/14/22  
Refer
6/14/22  
Report Pass
6/20/22  
Refer
6/20/22  
Report Pass
6/29/22  
Report Pass
6/29/22  
Enrolled
8/25/22  
Enrolled
8/25/22  
Chaptered
9/13/22  
Chaptered
9/13/22  
Passed
9/13/22  

Caption

Dog training services: disclosure requirement.

Impact

By enacting AB 1901, the law adds a level of accountability and consumer protection in the dog training market. It requires trainers to share pertinent information, which could significantly influence a consumer's choice, ideally resulting in better industry standards. Furthermore, the allowance for civil action reinforces consumers' rights, enabling them to seek damages if the disclosure requirements are violated. This could lead to increased scrutiny and potentially elevate the quality of dog training services provided in the state.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 1901 establishes new requirements for dog training services in California, aimed at protecting consumers who are purchasing such services. The bill mandates that dog trainers provide written disclosures to purchasers at the time of service, revealing any civil judgments that have been made against them as well as any convictions related to animal cruelty. This legislation is part of a broader effort to enhance transparency in the pet training industry and to ensure that consumers are informed about the trustworthiness of the trainers they are hiring.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment surrounding AB 1901 is primarily positive, with a focus on the benefits of increased transparency and consumer rights. Legislators who supported the bill emphasized the importance of ensuring that pet owners have access to necessary information that can affect the wellbeing of their dogs. However, there may also be concerns among some trainers about the implications of disclosing past judgments and criminal records, with apprehensions that such disclosures could negatively impact their businesses regardless of their current qualifications or conduct.

Contention

While the bill has garnered support for its consumer-focused approach, there are notable contentions regarding its implications for trainers in the industry. Some dog trainers may argue that past civil judgments, which may no longer be relevant, should not affect their current practice or reputation. Furthermore, the potential for civil lawsuits stemming from violations of these disclosure mandates could create fear among trainers about legal repercussions. This tension between consumer rights and business operations reflects the ongoing debate regarding regulation and accountability in service industries.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CT HB06731

An Act Concerning The Department Of Public Health's Recommendations Regarding Change In Ownership Of Health Care Facilities.

MI SB1082

Consumer protection: privacy; reproductive health data privacy act; create. Creates new act.

MI HB6077

Consumer protection: privacy; reproductive health data privacy act; create. Creates new act.

CA SB581

Third-party litigation financing.

AZ SB1627

Corporations; sober living homes

IL SB0767

REGULATION-TECH

SC H3402

Age-Appropriate Design

CA AB35

Civil damages: medical malpractice.