Assembly Standing Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection

Let's call the roll and establish quorum so we can vote on the consent calendar.

[Roll call]

A quorum is established. We will entertain a motion on the consent calendar. We have a second on the consent calendar. Great. So the consent calendar is AB 1971 Addis, due pass to the Education Committee. Call the roll.

On the consent calendar. [Roll call]

That bill has eight, it's out. But we will leave the roll open for absent members. Mr. Grayson, you are first. AB 1849.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I would like to first thank the Committee for their hard work. They did incredible work on this important bill and I would like to accept the Committee's suggested amendments. AB 1849 includes non motorized travel trailers and fifth wheel trailers into the definition of new motor vehicle for the purposes of the Tanner Consumer Protection Act. During the COVID-19 pandemic, recreational vehicle sales skyrocketed and we witnessed in California here at least a massive surge in the demand.

There was nearly 40% increase in sales just in 2021 alone, and even from that prior year. So with the robust demand for RVs, consumers were finding themselves with faulty or even poorly made travel trailers and fifth wheels. While consumers of new motor vehicles may be protected in the Lemon Law, non motorized travel trailers or fifth wheels are unfortunately not included in the same, and I'm stressing the word same, Lemon Law protections

Specifically, purchasers of travel trailers and fifth wheels are covered in a broader consumer protections covered under the Song-Beverly Act, but they are not afforded the ability to elect their own remedy, which are covered under the Tanner Consumer Act. AB 1849 will help protect consumers and provide legal recourse for individuals who unknowingly purchase defective travel trailers or fifth wheels. So I am aware that there are some existing concerns on the bill.

I have engaged in productive conversations with the stakeholders, and I remain fully committed to addressing any policy concerns that should the bill move forward through the legislative process.

Thank you.

And this is staff.

So, anyone here in support of the bill? Okay, seeing none, then we'll move. Besides Miss Papa, anyone here in opposition to the bill? Come join us. And we will give you each two minutes.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I'm Rosemary Shahan, President of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, and we would love to be able to support this bill. We really appreciate Assemblymember Grayson's interest in improving protections for California consumers who buy these vehicles, a lot of times planning in advance to use them to take their families on trips, and especially like during the pandemic when it was hazardous to be in a hotel or motel.

There's really no excuse for what happened to Assemblymember Grayson, and we're best known for expanding protections under California's auto Lemon Law for small business owners, military personnel, and others who rely on the law when they have vehicles that they desperately need to work properly or their life falls apart.

So we regret that we're in a position of opposing the bill as introduced, but we've been in discussions with the Assembly Member and his staff and appreciate his offer to work with us to ensure that inadvertent and unintended consequences are addressed as the bill moves through the legislative process, and to also explore avenues that may work well for consumers that may not necessarily involve legislation. Thank you.

Tthank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee and Assembly Grayson, for bringing the bill, which will be strange that I'm taking position of opposition. My name is Elliot Khan. I'm a private practitioning consumer protection attorney in Californian since 2011. I primarily focus on breach of warranty issues, and I've successfully represented hundreds of California consumers in a wide variety of consumer products in California, ranging from vehicles to RVs and trailers to boats.

I even had a case dealing with faucets once, and these have all been brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty act, generally with excellent results. I'm also a Member of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, on whose behalf I speak today to voice our concerns with the bill as written. While we appreciate the pro consumer intent behind the bill, the biggest concern is that we'll actually make these types of cases more difficult to prosecute.

As of now, in order to show breach of warranty with a normal consumer good, you simply have to show that there was a defect covered by the warranty which they couldn't fix within a reasonable number of attempts or period of time.

The bill as written, by bringing trailers into Tanner, would add a substantial impairment test, which really is a vehicle specific test, the use, value, or safety of the motor vehicle is substantially impaired to a consumer in the same position as the buyer, with the types of defects you normally see with RVs or travel trailers, where really the issue isn't so much how bad the issue is, it's just how darn long it takes them to fix it. These cases could be a lot more difficult to prosecute.

So while we look forward to working with the assemblymen to amend the bill to effectuate the pro consumer intent as written, we must voice our concerns with it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition or in the middle? Can we get the mic set up so they can add in? There we go.

Chair and Members, I'm Mike Belote for the RV Industry Association. We've discussed this with Mr. Grayson and his staff at some length. In the spirit of full disclosure and transparency, this idea is something we have pondered in the past. It's a little complicated, as the opposition has noted. The simple fact is, RVs are different than cars. They're essentially a house on wheels, and they're full of consumer products and refrigerators and microwaves and televisions and all sorts of things.

There are differences, some pointed out in the analysis, some not. But it isn't as simple as pulling a part off of the shelf as it is with a car. It isn't a starter. You may have to fabricate a cabinet. You may have to do a countertop, and it may take some time. So RVs are different, and we have explored with Mr. Grayson some recognition of that. We're in discussion with stakeholders on it. We think we may well get to a point where it works for everyone.

But for us, the number one priority is having happy customers. We want to sell them another unit after this one. And it's an important part of commerce. It's an important part of recreation. And we want to make it work. So we place to do that.

Thank you, I'm Nancy Peverini with the Consumer Attorneys of California. Similarly, we look forward to working with the author. We have reviewed the bill. We appreciate the intent. We'd like to continue working on language. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no further comments, questions or comments from the dais. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Mr. Grayson, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm so honored to have the most pleasant opposition show up today. I do want to just stipulate again, purchasers of travel trailers and fifth wheel owners are covered in a broader consumer protection covered under the Song-Beverly act, but they are not afforded the ability to elect their own remedy, which are covered under the Tanner Consumer Act. I do understand the differences, and that's why I am fully committed to working with stakeholders to make sure we get the language right.

I don't want to undermine consumer protections. I only want to make them better and working with a great group of opposition to do that. So, having said that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And you're accepting Committee amendments today?

I am accepting.

Perfect. Thank you. And the opposition letter came in late yesterday. But some of what was in it, for example, that the odometer is an important piece of the test in the lemon lot. Other things I know you can work to address through the process. And I trust, having had conversations with you about your intent on this bill, that your intent is to protect consumers, and that's why I'm happy to support it today.

I also thought the letter went a little far in saying that by amending this one piece of the law, we were commenting on other pieces of the law. I don't think that is an accurate statement. So with that, let's call the roll.

Item number one, AB 1849 by Assemblymember Grayson. The motion is due pass as amended. [Roll Call]

That Bill has eight votes. It is output. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Ms. Papan, you are up. And this is AB 2037.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm delighted to be here and not be presenting anything to do with AI, which will be probably the bulk of your term. And first off, I do want to thank the committee. And we will accept the committee amendments. Just so you know, AB 2037 will give county sealers the authority to test and verify municipally owned EV chargers.

County sealers are tasked with testing and verifying commercial measurement devices such as grocery store scales, your gas station pump, all of those good things. Their job is to make sure you get what you pay for. Generally, the county sealer's jurisdiction covers privately owned equipment. However, there is currently no entity in charge of publicly owned EV chargers. To ensure confidence, impartiality and consumer protection, it's imperative that county sealers have clear authority to test and verify publicly owned EV chargers.

With inflation and growing income disparity, people are experiencing hard times when every dollar counts. It's critical that you get what you pay for. With me here to testify on behalf of the bill is Matt Siverling, on behalf of the County Sealers. Take it away, Matt.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Matthew Siverling, on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association. Thank you for presenting most of my testimony. I appreciate that. I won't tell you what the county sealers do in the county. I think it's pretty clear they're there to make sure you get what you pay for. They test every pump, meter, submeter, everything that measures, anything that's being sold to you and make sure that that measurement is accurate and you're getting what you pay for.

Again, however, there was a 1977 predating me, attorney general opinion that opined that for the purposes of division five of the BNP code, a person does not include a municipality, state or local government. So what we're trying to do through this bill, based on the proliferation of EV chargers, which are now sort of a new business model being adopted by cities, to make sure that any wing and measuring device, regardless of whether it's privately owned or publicly owned, is under the jurisdiction of the county sealer.

And again, we can go in there and test those and make sure that they're accurate and consumers are getting what they pay for. So we respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support?

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members Elizabeth Espinosa, here today on behalf of the Board of Supervisors and the County of Santa Clara, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, members. My name is Megan Mekelburg and I'm here on behalf of the EV Charging Association. We don't have an official position yet, but really want to thank the author for her work in taking the committee amendments and looking forward to continuing conversations.

Thank you. Anyone here in opposition to the bill? Motion a second. Okay. Seeing no opposition, any members have questions? Yeah, go ahead.

First of all, two questions. How would AI help with this? Process. Just kidding. Only if you're on this committee. You probably had one too many of those meetings. Sorry. But I just want to say I'm in support of applying the same rules and restrictions to government agencies as we do the private sector. So happy to support this bill today. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none. First time I learned what you did, I found it to be one of the most fascinating consumer protections out there. So appreciate the work you do and expanding it out. And would you like to close?

I'll just respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

We have a motion of seconds, let's call the roll.

Item number three, AB 2037, by Assemblymember Papan. The motion is do passed, as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

And before you leave, Assemblymember, it's my understanding that our Committee Member, Ms. Irwin, wants to be added as a principal co-author. Is that okay with you?

Yeah. Thank you for reminding me.

Okay, great.

Assemblymember Irwin will be added as a principal co-author.

Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And that has eight votes. It's out.

But we will leave the roll open for absent members. We'll go back to call the roll on consent and other things. And for members who are not here, you have minutes to get here to add on. We will leave it open.

On the consent calendar. [Roll call] Thank you.

We will call the roll for the absent members who are now here. Welcome.

Item number one on the consent calendar. [Roll call]. Item number two, AB 1849, by Assemblymember Grayson. The motion is due pass as amended. The vote now is 8-0. [Roll call]. That's 10-0. Item number three, AB 2037, by Assemblymember Papan. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. The vote now is 8-0. [Roll call].Thank you.

This hearing will be adjourned.