The Parent’s Accountability and Child Protection Act: remedies.
If enacted, SB 659 will expand the scope of civil penalties applied to businesses that fail to comply with age restrictions. The existing penalties will now be enforced for each minor user of a prohibited product and will be applicable in cases initiated by either public prosecutors or parents/guardians of minors. Thus, the potential financial liability for businesses could increase significantly for multiple violations, prompting a stronger emphasis on compliance with age verification requirements.
Senate Bill 659, known as the Parents Accountability and Child Protection Act, proposes amendments to the existing civil code relating to consumer protection, specifically regarding the sale of products and services restricted for minors. The bill mandates that businesses which sell such products ensure that purchasers are of legal age, implementing various verification methods to prevent minors from acquiring items that are prohibited under state law. This includes requiring legal identification and implementing systems to block underage purchases.
The sentiment surrounding SB 659 is generally supportive among lawmakers and advocacy groups focusing on child protection. Proponents believe that the bill will enhance safety measures for minors by ensuring responsible sales practices. However, there may be concerns from businesses about the increased financial burdens and administrative complexities imposed by the rigorous age verification processes outlined in the bill. Critics may perceive it as an encroachment on commercial freedoms and a potential driver of increased costs for compliance.
A notable point of contention regarding SB 659 involves the balance between consumer protection and the operational capacities of businesses. Opponents may argue that the stringent measures mandated for age verification could complicate sales processes and impose heavy burdens on smaller businesses that may lack the resources to implement such systems effectively. Discussions in legislative settings have highlighted the tension between enforcing consumer protection and maintaining fair business practices across the state.