Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Chandler/Silva/Anyanonu
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 2/4/25
SHORT TITLE Unfair Practices Act Changes
BILL
NUMBER House Bill 61
ANALYST Chavez
REVENUE*
(dollars in thousands)
Type FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
Fines and
forfeitures
No fiscal
impact
Indeterminate but
minimal gain
Indeterminate
but minimal
gain
Indeterminate
but minimal gain
Indeterminate
but minimal gain
Recurring
General
Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate revenue decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
AOC No fiscal impact
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Recurring General Fund
Courts No fiscal impact
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Recurring General Fund
Total No fiscal impact
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Recurring General Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Relates to House Bill 60
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG)
Workers’ Compensation Administration (WCA)
Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)
Tax and Revenue Department (TRD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 61
House Bill 61 (HB61) amends Section 57-12-2 NMSA 1978, within the Unfair Practices Act, to House Bill 61 – Page 2
expand the definition of “trade” or “commerce.” HB61 removes financial instruments from the
definition of “unconscionable trade practice” and adds the removed financial instruments to the
definitions of “trade” or “commerce.” Also included in the definition of “trade” or “commerce”
is every type of property, including tangible or intangible, real, or personal, or a mix. HB61 also
removes financial instruments from the definition of "unfair or deceptive trade practice” and
adds language regarding any unfair methods of competition or practices and acts that are unfair
or deceptive in ordinary trade or commerce proceedings. HB61 replaces the financial instruments
defined in the definition of “unconscionable trade practice” with “trade or commerce.” Also
amended in the definition of “unconscionable trade practice” is adding gross disparity between
value exchanged in a proceeding and not just value received, or price paid.
HB161 also amends the civil penalties section of the Unfair Practices Act, Section 57-12-11
NMSA 1978. HB161 raises the financial penalties for violations of the Unfair Practices Act,
increasing the maximum civil penalty from $5,000 to $10 thousand per violation. Moreover, if a
violation occurs during a declared state of emergency or disaster by federal, state or local
officials, the penalty increases to a maximum of $25 thousand per violation. The Attorney
General is authorized to petition the court for these penalties and can also recover investigation
and enforcement costs whenever a court imposes civil liability.
This bill does not contain an effective date and, as a result, would go into effect 90 days after the
Legislature adjourns if enacted, or June 20, 2025.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) provides the following:
There will be a minimal administrative cost for statewide update, distribution and
documentation of statutory changes. Any additional fiscal impact on the judiciary would
be proportional to the increase in the number of requests for injunction and actions
brought pursuant to Section 57-12-10 NMSA 1978, any increase in the number of
petitions for recovery of civil penalties by the AG under Section 57-12-11 NMSA, and
any increase in the number of appeals from the granting of injunctions, awards of
damages, and the imposition of civil fines. New laws, amendments to existing laws, and
new hearings have the potential to increase caseloads in the courts, thus requiring
additional resources to handle the increase
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) provides the following:
1) The expanded HB61 definition of “trade” or “commerce” and the linking of the
definitions of “unfair or deceptive trade practice” and “unconscionable trade practice”
to “trade or commerce” will allow for an increased number of requests for an
injunction and actions seeking a private remedy under Section 57-12-10 NMSA 1978
and potentially more petitions from the AG for recovery of a civil penalty, under
Section 57-12-11 NMSA 1978, on behalf of the state.
2) Increased penalties are a likely result in additional appeals from the imposition of
civil penalties.
3) New Mexico does not have a specific statute that addresses price gouging, unlike
Colorado, which prohibits charging excessive prices for food, building materials, fuel House Bill 61 – Page 3
and other necessities during a declared disaster (with a look-back period of
immediately before the declaration), and imposes civil penalties of up to $20
thousand per violation (or up to $50 thousand if the violation affected an elderly
consumer) and restitution for consumers. See Colorado Revised Statutes, Sections 6-
1-730 and 6-1-112. See also Price Gouging Laws by State - FindLaw for a 2024
listing of state price gouging laws and penalties.
Under the UPA, however, it’s illegal to take advantage of consumers to a grossly unfair
degree, which may include price gouging. See Section 57-12-2(E)(2) defining
“unconscionable trade practice” to mean an act or practice in connection with trade or
commerce that results in a gross disparity between the value received by a person and the
price paid or value exchanged. The HB 61 amendment to this statutory section adds the
words “or value exchanged” to now include nonmonetary exchanges.
Following the South Fork and Salt fires in southern New Mexico, the [New Mexico
Attorney General] received complaints of price gouging and sent cease and desist notices
to several Roswell hotels, requesting immediate cessation from engaging in business
practices that violate the NM UPA. Under the HB61 amendments to the UPA, the
potential for the imposition of increased civil penalties being imposed for practices
undertaken during and arising out of a disaster or state of emergency may help to deter
price gouging and other unfair and unconscionable practices during these times.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
The courts participate in performance-based budgeting and the bill may have an impact on the
following performance measures: cases disposed of as a percentage of cases filed (clearance
rate), and percent change in case filings by case type.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
The New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG) provides the following:
Related: HB 60, proposing to create the Artificial Intelligence Act, states that any
violation of the Artificial Intelligence Act constitutes an unfair practice pursuant to the
UPA and may be enforced under that law
TECHNICAL ISSUES
The New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG) provides the following:
In Section 2 of the Bill, it states, “In any action brought under Section [49-15-7 NMSA
1953] 57-12-8 NMSA 1978, […].” However, neither NMOneSource, nor the hard copy
statutory compilation contain the citation to 49-15-7 NMSA 1953. Both of those sources
reflect 57-12-11 as reading “In any action brought under Section 57-12-8 NMSA 1978,
[…].” The reference to 49-15-7 may be a technical drafting error that should be reviewed
and potentially corrected.
FC/rl/hg