Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection - Mar 27, 2026

Morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members, for the opportunity to present senate file number 4401. Mr. Chair and members, we do have an A1 and an A2amendment which I can describe before you adopt it, if you like, very quickly. So Senate, the A1 would be a delete everything amendment. The A2 then would be just a technical little bit of fix up to the. To the A1. And it would then, if it is adopted, it would bring together seven bills that have been presented to this committee previously. And those include Senate files 4541, which has to do with supply chain streamlining. Senate File 4519, which has to do with local government regulatory clarity. Senate File 4540, Licensing and enforcement improvements. Senate File 4429, which has to do with labeling updates and has something to do with hemp. Senate File 4401, which is updating the nature of reporting that's expected and required of the Office of Cannabis management. Senate File 4402, which has to do with data practices. We just talked about that a couple days ago. What should be kept made public and what should be kept non public incentive. File 4403, which is a series of technical and housekeeping updates. I'll just add also that there was some overlap between 4540 and 4541. And so some of those overlapping issues were made were made more consistent with each other. So that's the A1, and we can go into more detail if we like. So, Mr. Chair, the A2 is. I confess, I don't completely understand, but as it's been explained to me, it's just technical. As I glance through it, it's just replacing some words for other words and things like that.

Senator Dibble, any questions on the A2? Senator Wickland offers the A2. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's adopted. Any further summary of your bill or. Director Talbot, any comment?

Questions from the committee, Senator rasmussen.

Senator Duckworth, thanks. Mr. Chair. Just briefly, I don't know if it's an oversight or not, but on the agenda, I thought for sure by now we'd see Senator Dibble listed as an honorary member of the committee. But

Chair, is that an honor or a demerit?

I have a cup of coffee. I'm content.

Senator France. Senator France.

Senator Dibble.

Thank you, Senator dibble. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That pledge is good enough for me. I can support the bill moving forward. I do not understand the supply chain and efficiency topics as well. I too will put in a little bit of time if it helps. So thank you, Mr. Chair, for the chance to address that.

That would be great. Thank you for that, Senator. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Yeah,

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members,

Thank you, Mr.

And I appreciate the opportunity to move up in the agenda given some other committee hearings this morning. The bill before the committee modernizes Minnesota's telecom statutes to reflect today's broadband driven marketplace. It removes obsolete telephone era regulations, reduces barriers to development and aligns state law with federal standards. I want to thank the Department of Commerce and the Public Utilities Commission for working with the Minnesota Telecom alliance to find and identify obsolete language duplicative requirements that are no longer needed and to identify those in this bill. Mr. Chair, I do have an amendment that reflects the consensus and the work with the Department of Commerce and the Public Utilities Commission. So I would like to move the A1amendment as authors amendment, which is a delete everything amendment.

Thank you, Mr.

And we do have a section by section summary and I'm happy to go through that, but I can also hand it over to my testifier to offer any comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Brent Christensen. I'm the president and CEO of the Minnesota Telecom Alliance. We're a trade association that represents over 80 independent telephone companies throughout the state of Minnesota. In the interest of time, I'm going to dispense with reading my written testimony and just kind of tell you about how we got to where we are. We started about six months ago and went through chapter 237 and we did it under three lenses. One, is the, is the sections in that statute, are they technologically obsolete? Two, are they now anti competitive? The statute was written over adapted over 40 years ago, 10 years before competition came to our industry. And third, does it line up with federal rules and law? So we went through it section by section and we came up with things that we thought should be repealed, things that we thought should be adapted and changed. I'll just give you one quick example. There's a statute that requires us to trace calls when we're required to by law. We don't have that technology anymore. We can't tap onto a phone line like we used to be able to because of IP technology. We have now federal requirements that we have to conform to that. It's called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement act. And that is that is more up to date than what we have in law. So we've changed the language to adapt to that. Once we got done with that, we met with the Department of Commerce, who've been a very collaborative partner in this whole process and went through it and came to things that we could agree to that needed to stay in, things that needed to get out. And then after that we gave it to the Public Utilities Commission. So collaboratively we worked with Commerce and I want to thank them for that and the commission as well. So I think we have agreed upon bill that's the first step in modernizing telephone regulation. Once we do this, I will be back next year with rules that we need to repeal and adapt to do this. But the first thing is to is to get the statute going. So I want to thank Senator Rasmussen for bringing this forward. And with that, Mr. Chair, I'm happy to stand for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would move that Senate file 4496 as amended be recommended to pass and be sent to general orders.

Senator Port,

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Preventing invasive discriminatory Discriminatory surveillance pricing is one of the best, most obvious things we as a legislature can do. For Minnesotans this year, the practice of using consumers data to price the same product differently for different people is new and it's spreading fast. Grocery chains across the country are rapidly rolling out electronic shelf labels, essentially digital price tags that can change in an instant. With the help of AI, these electronic price systems can pull in a massive amount of personal data and open the door to surveillance pricing or charging different customers different prices based on who they are or when they shop. Even the name surveillance pricing is disturbing. The idea that we're being watched, that big corporations and big tech have eyes on us everywhere, are collecting our names and our faces, sharing and selling our personal data and using it against us. Kroger has 60 million household profiles by its own admission and is now selling that household data to advertisers and other businesses. With electronic shelf labels, companies can change the price of an item at the drop of a hat without any warning. Prices could spike at peak hours when companies know the stores will be full of customers looking to shop quickly. Electronic shelf labels can change so quickly the price of an item can change before a customer reaches the cash register. Everyone deserves to pay the same price for the same product. Charging different prices to different people is discrimination, plain and simple. With the cost of living continuing to rise, the last thing families need is price gouging at the airport or at the supermarket. ESLs also threaten grocery stores livelihood grocery workers livelihood. These systems could replace the skilled workers of grocery clerks or at the very least leave them to explain a company's actions to angry shoppers. I'll just briefly sketch out what practices would be regulated under the language of this bill. Grocery stores would be prohibited from using electronic shelving labels, from engaging in specialized pricing based on algorithms or customer surveillance, or even from collecting data on minors under 17, and from using that data on a protected class to set the price of a good. Here's what the bill explicitly allows if a store wants to use your purchase history to offer a lower price, we are not going to stand in the way of anyone and their loyalty rewards I'll close by saying this bill feels like a continuation of our work banning junk fees in 2024. Surveillance pricing is part of the same playbook to undermine consumers ability to shop in their best interest. I'm also encouraged by bipartisan collaboration on legislation regulating AI and data privacy and an issue all Minnesotans and all Americans are worried about across the board. That's why I pushed and asked for this hearing before deadline because I would love to continue working with this committee. I don't think we want to move the bill forward. I think we should lay it over and continue talking about it to make sure that we're making the best decisions as we move forward. But I appreciate the committee's time and I think there are a few testifiers.

Thank you, Chair Klein and committee members. My name is Justin Stofferron with Minnesota Farmers Union. I appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts today on the issue of surveillance pricing. MFU is a grassroots organization that's represented family farmers Ranchers and rural communities since 1918. Back then, farmers came together to ensure they received a fair price for what they produced. But the fight for fair pricing in Minnesota dates back even further, to the 1870s, when farmers successfully pushed the legislature to curb personalized and discriminatory railroad prices. That same era produced the price tag establishing the uniform pricing consumers have come to expect and is key to a fair and democratic economy. In fact, 83% of Americans believe that businesses should charge all consumers the same price for the same item. Surveillance pricing threatens to undermine that expectation and erode the very concept of prices, which also undermines efforts to provide real discounts. A recent Consumer Reports investigation into Instacart reveals how surveillance pricing tactics can be used to increase costs on consumers. Following that investigation, the Trump administration's Federal Trade Commission said, quote, like so many Americans, we are disturbed by what we have read in the press about Instacart's alleged pricing practices. Surveillance pricing could also create a more unlevel playing field as big tech firms move to integrate AI agents into retail decisions, deciding where to shop and what brands to purchase. This opens up a future where small businesses like your local grocer are squeezed out by agreements between tech companies and dominant retailers. In competitive markets, surveillance pricing would not be nearly as attractive a strategy. But in consolidated markets, this is a powerful mechanism for gouging consumers. And unfortunately, the economy has been rapidly consolidating, particularly in grocery, where just four firms control over half of sales. So thank you, Senator Port, for your work on this issue. We look forward to working with you and the committee on the language to make sure it addresses some of the things I've outlined today and to address the unfair pricing methods driving up costs for Minnesotans. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Rena Wong. I'm the president of the United Food and commercial workers local 663. And thank you for taking the time this morning to hear the comments and concerns of our members. It is really important for our members that we keep groceries affordable for all Minnesotans and that we protect good union jobs that provide family sustaining wages here in the state. And we believe that AI powered electronic shelf labels and surveillance pricing will hurt Minnesotans and hurt workers, because the opposite. The industry likes to say that we are trying to stifle progress and that we need to be able to compete in the

Sa.

Opposed?

Senator Westland, let's go to your testifiers.

Welcome to the committee. Mr. Hartman, please introduce yourself and proceed.

You're good.

Hello, everyone. I'm Colin Hortman, Mark and Melissa Hartman's son. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. I'm here to describe the process my family went through to get my parents home cleaned up properly after tear gas, chemical irritants, and other diversionary devices were deployed inside. My hope is that by sharing this experience, future victims won't have to go through the same long and confusing fight with insurance and cleanup standards that we did. After my parents were assassinated, law enforcement deployed diversionary devices because they believed the suspect might still be inside. There were multiple canisters used, at least one in every room, and the house was left covered in chemical residue. We quickly learned that cleaning up tear gas and other diversionary grenades is not as simple as wiping things down. The residue that brought remains in the carpets, furniture, walls, and ventilation systems. And if not removed properly, it can continue to irritate your skin, eyes, lungs, and in some cases, leave behind harmful chemicals. The first issue we ran into with insurance is what qualified as proper cleanup. The initial recommendation from the insurer was essentially basic cleaning. Soap, water, and general vacuuming. The biohazard cleanup contractor told us this was not the industry standard for TRS contamination. They said the proper process required neutralizing chemicals, HEPA filtration, protective gear, and a much more Thorough decontamination of the home. The concern was that basic cleaning would not remove the residue and could leave behind chemicals that were unsafe, especially for long term exposure. At first, I didn't know who to trust. I don't trust contractors and I don't trust insurance companies either. So I spent weeks trying to understand what the correct process actually was. I contacted other cleanup companies and got additional quotes, and they all described the same type of remediation. Even then, the insurance company said they needed their own analysis before agreeing to the work. That led to yet another delay testing. The first round of testing that was done was limited and did not cover all of the possible chemical agents that could have been used. The sampling methods were also questioned by the professionals we were working with. We ended up hiring an additional testing company through an industrial hygienist who followed industry standards and used a more complete panel. That testing confirmed what the contractors had said from the very beginning. The house needed full neutralization, filtration and protective cleanup procedures. Even after that, there was more back and forth. The insurance company still wanted to adjust the scope of work, and the process turned into months of communication, additional reports, and negotiations over what should have been a straightforward remediation. Eventually, after conversations involving lawyers and outside experts, the final cleanup ended up being almost exactly what the contractors had originally recommended. The part that concerns me most is that my family had resources that most people do not have. We had attorneys helping us because of the criminal case. We had connections in state government. We had the ability to wait for months of testing reports and negotiations. Even with all of that, the process felt extremely slow, confusing, and difficult to understand. At times it felt like the system was designed to make you give up and just accept what was offered just so you could move on. For many families, that is exactly what would have happened. If you are still living in the home, you need to sell it or you need the money quickly to deal with everything else that comes after a traumatic event. You may not have the ability to fight over cleanup standards for months. You may accept the first proposal just to get your life back. In our case, if we had done that, the home would not have been cleaned properly. We could have ended up with house that wasn't safe to live in or sell in good faith. The delay also had a real emotional cost. This was my childhood home. After my parents died, there were things that I wanted to do there as part of my grieving and healing process that had to be put on hold for months while we argued over what the insurance company would pay for that Weight came on top of everything else our family was dealing with. The public nature of the case, the ongoing criminal proceedings, and the impact the trauma had on our entire family. Fighting over whether basic cleaning was good enough when the industry standard was clearly more thorough made an already painful situation even harder. I'm here today because I don't want future victims to have to become experts in diversionary devices, can chemical gas remediation, insurance law and environmental testing just to make their home safe again. There should be clear standards for cleanup, clear expectations for insurers, and a process that does not require months of negotiation to reach what professionals already know is the correct solution. Thank you for your time and for your work to make this process fairer for the people who have to go through it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the bill has a definition section, but I will focus primarily on the exclusion prohibition. So it's my understanding that there are some homeowners policies that do exclusion this type of property damage. So what the Bill does on 1.21 to 1.24 is it states that a policy, homeowner's insurance policy of homeowner's insurance must not exclude coverage where it's an innocent third party and the damages result from the use of these diversionary chemical irritants, smoke screens, et cetera. This bill has been amended with input from the insurance federation, but also the local by LMC as well. What this will do is expedite the process so the homeowner can submit a claim to their homeowner's insurance policy. They will pay the claim and then they will there will be subrogation and then they will collect from the local government unit at that point. Also, the other part of this bill does provide that if the insurer is reimbursed, they must remit to the homeowner any deductible amount. As well, the portion of this that was taken out by the amendment, just for folks understanding lines 2.18 to 2.22, this was based on feedback from LMC that there's already a system of where and who, which local government unit would be responsible for that reimbursement. And the language that we've pulled out actually created a lack of clarity on that. But as Mr. Hartman has described, this really is to expedite the process, to make it clearer so that they can be made whole and then subrogating the claim.

But.

That's correct, Mr.

I'm sorry, I forgot that we hadn't added that one yet. That is the one that takes out those lines that I described. Mr. Chair. 2.18 to 2.22. Who removes that section that was requested from LMC because there's already a process in place to determine which local government unit would be responsible for the reimbursement to the insurance company. And this language actually made it less clear. There could be a situation, for instance, if that language were left in, where maybe peace officers are providing traffic control and they have nothing to do with the deployment of any of the irritants. Like that would not be the government unit that you would seek reimbursement from. They already have a process. And so that amendment makes that clear that there is. They will go by the process that is in place.

Mr.

Thank you, Mr. Cocking. Questions from the committee or comments? Thank you.

Questions on the motion of Senator Seaberger that Senate File 4406 is amended, be recommended pass and sent to general Orders. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? It is adopted. Thank you, Senator Westlands. Thank you to the Hortman family members. We are adjourned.

Sam.