Trade: business practices; excessively increased pricing for certain goods and services during a declared state of emergency; prohibit. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: SB 0954'24, SB 0956'24
If enacted, SB 955 would amend existing commerce laws to provide consumers with explicit legal protections during emergencies. The bill authorizes the Michigan Attorney General to enforce these provisions, enabling action against businesses that violate pricing regulations. Penalties can be severe, including civil fines up to $1,000,000 for companies and $10,000 for individuals per violation. This act aims to protect consumers during vulnerable times when they are most in need of basic necessities and services.
Senate Bill 955, known as the 'Commodities and Emergency Services and Supplies Pricing Protection Act,' aims to prevent excessive pricing for essential goods and services during declared states of emergency in Michigan. The bill defines excessive pricing as an unjustified price increase of more than 10% compared to prices immediately before the emergency declaration, unless justified by increased costs. It includes provisions for building materials, consumer food items, emergency supplies, and medical supplies, necessitating that businesses refrain from unjustifiably inflating prices during crises.
Overall sentiment regarding SB 955 appears to be supportive among consumer advocacy groups and the public, who perceive it as a vital safeguard against price gouging during emergencies. Legislators highlight the importance of ensuring accessibility to essential goods and services at reasonable prices in times of crisis. Conversely, some business associations express concerns regarding potential negative impacts on economic operations, arguing that price controls may discourage distributors from adequately supplying emergency goods.
The key points of contention revolve around the balance between consumer protection and the economic implications for businesses. Opponents argue that stringent regulations may lead to unintended consequences, such as reduced inventory or hesitant suppliers during emergencies. Proponents counter that such measures are essential for maintaining fair market practices and protecting consumers from exploitation when they are most vulnerable, underscoring the act’s necessity to preserve public trust in commerce during crises.