Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection

Good morning and welcome to the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection. This, is our Wednesday, March 18, 2026, 09:30AM CPN committee agenda in Conference Room 229 at the Hawaii State Capitol. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. And in the event we need to abruptly postpone the hearing or reconvene, that's gonna be on Tuesday next Tuesday, March 24 in Conference Room 229 at, 09:45am, and then we'll repost an agenda. We'll, in case we need to defer action on any measures, that will be the date that we reconvene on these measures.

Again 03/24/202609:45AM in Conference Room 229. First up we have House Bill 1511 House Draft two relating to consumer protection. This measure prohibits entities from distributing unsolicited mail or electronic mail that employs high pressure tactics or is reasonably likely to cause a consumer to believe that the sender is affiliated with another entity that the sender is not actually affiliated with. First up, Raji Tolentino, Office of Consumer Protection and Support.

Good morning, chairman. Vice chair. Good morning.

Testimony. Thank you for standing on your testimony. Next up, we have the DCCA insurance division in support.

Good morning. Hi, good morning chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Jamie Alamo on behalf of the insurance division. We stand on a written testimony in support and available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Bill Gunnison for service contract industry council with comments. Good morning.

Morning, chair and vice chair, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. My name is Bill Gunnison, and I'm an attorney with the Service Contract Industry Council. The Service Contract Industry Council is a trade association that represents the national service contract industry,

including the providers, administrators, insurers, manufacturers, and retailers that offer service contracts in Hawaii. Service contracts, often referred to as protection plans, are offered on a wide range of products from vehicles to home appliances to cell phones, and they cover the cost to repair or replace the product if it breaks.

Our association and our members support the goal of House bill 1511 and support efforts to crack down on deceptive mailers in the service contract and warranty space. These types of mailers give the industry a bad name, and our members welcome efforts to address the bad actors who are tarnishing the reputation of the broader industry.

So we are very supportive of the underlying objective of this bill. In the written testimony we submitted, we did suggest a few clarifying amendments. The intent of those amendments is simply to ensure that legitimate communications between our members and their customers, things like renewal notices and other routine correspondence, is not inadvertently swept into the scope of the bill.

If these suggested amendments in our written testimony are not workable for any reason, we would welcome the opportunity to work with the bill sponsor, the committee, and any other interested stakeholders to find a solution.

We appreciate the legislature's work in this area and applaud the effort to stop deceptive mailers that harm both consumers in Hawaii and the responsible companies operating in the space. Thank you again for your time this morning.

Thank you very much.

Melissa Pavosek for the Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association in opposition and Will Caron in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members questions? Okay. If there are no questions, we'll move on to

We also have written testimony and support from Brian Anderson of the Mortgage Bankers Association of Hawaii. Mark Seckman from the American Property Casualty Insurance Association with comments.

First up, we have Gary Suganuma Suganuma for the Hawaii Department of Taxation with comments.

Thank you, mister Avila, for standing on your testimony. Tanya Machika. Tanya Machika for the tax foundation with comments online.

the next measure. House bill 1535 house draft two relating to automated external defibrillators. This measure establishes an income tax for automated external defibrillator devices that are installed and placed in service in certain places of public accommodation located in the state.

Aloha. Hi. For Tanya Machika, Tax Foundation of Hawaii stands on our written comments. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Members, questions? I don't know who to ask.

Thank you for standing on your testimony. We also have written comments from the Department of Health, written testimony in support from Stephanie Donahoe of the Kahala Coast Resort Association, and supporting testimony from Melissa Palvicek for the Building Owners and Managers Association of Hawaii.

Senator McKelvey?

Thank you, chair. This might be Department of Health. I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I guess, is it necessary that this bill move forward that there'd be a tax credit attached to it?

I'm not the person to answer that question, unfortunately.

Garret Hall with the Department of Health. Unfortunately, we wouldn't be able to answer that question.

I was just curious. Yep.

Okay. Thank you, chair.

that accepts US currency from a customer in exchange for a digital financial asset. First up, Emma Olson, enforcement attorney for the DCCA's office of consumer protection and support or the director who's here.

Okay. If there are no other questions, we'll move to the next measure on the agenda, which is House bill 1642 House draft one relating to consumer protection. This measure prohibits the ownership operation or management of a digital financial asset transaction kiosk

Good morning. Chair Vice chair. We support this measure. We're having a stand on our testimony and available to answer questions.

Thank you very much. James Page for the attorney general in support.

Good morning, chair, vice chair. Good morning. Committee members. The attorney general supports this bill.

Are you James Page? Can you decide? Yes. Okay.

The attorney general supports this bill. These type of kiosks are being increasingly used by criminals to defraud vulnerable consumers, especially seniors. And once they're tricked into putting their money into the kiosks, there's very little chance of them getting it back.

This bill would ban a particular type of kiosks and that would protect those consumers. Stand for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have AARP Hawaii in support. Good morning.

Good morning. I'm Audrey Suga Nafagawa from AARP, and we stand in strong support of this measure. You know, fraud prevention is one of AARP's highest priorities, and cryptocurrency scans, especially those that involves the kiosks, are growing at an alarming rate.

These machines are located everywhere. They're in supermarkets, gas stations, convenience stores, and really makes it an easy tool for criminals to use.

For Hawaii specific, while we don't have the, data for 2025, we do know that in 2024, Hawaii residents lost about a million dollars averaging about $13,000 per person. So we can only imagine how much that might have increased over 2025 and going to 2026.

In 2025, there was more than $333,000,000 that were reported loss through these crypto, kiosks, scams. And that was a definite increase from the 2024 data of 20, dollars $250,000,000. So you can see a significant increase.

I do also want to point out that AARP has supported 2387 which this committee has passed, and it has crossed over to the house. This particular bill provides a broader framework of safeguards.

We are very concerned because the kupuna are disproportionately targeted for these particular scams. So we support this bill going forward. It does provide a meaningful action, cutting off the tools and mechanism for these scammers to take advantage.

And so we just urge that this committee passed this bill forward and hopefully this the two bills can be reconciled in conference. We just want to make sure that there is a strong consumer protection bill that will protect Hawaii's consumers.

So thank you so much for the opportunity to testify in some support, and I really appreciate your leadership and commitment to protecting Hawaii's consumers.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Luis Myers for Health Ventures in opposition.

Yes. Hi. Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning. Vice chair from the board committee. I'm Luis Hayes Myers. My husband and I are Health Ventures.

If you're gonna go beyond standing on your testimony, then we'd ask you to come up so that the feed can pick up your voice.

Oh yeah yeah yeah Okay.

I'm not schooled in this. So

Yeah.

Yeah. No worries. Yeah. If you can start by introducing yourself and then go ahead.

We operated for about three and a half years before you could buy crypto in any other fashion than through a kiosk in Hawaii. There were no exchanges here.

Louise Hayes Myers. My husband and I own Health Ventures, a crypto kiosk operator here in Hawaii with 24 locations across four islands. We've been here since 2021.

A ban is not the answer. A ban is gonna drive legitimate operators out of business and leave all kinds of loopholes and and dark places for the bad operators to continue to prey upon the Kikuna and other residents of the state.

So we have a pretty loyal customer base, a few thousand customers. And most of them are legitimate transactions. In in our testimony, we have requested that the committee consider replacing the complete ban language.

It's not someone that's been, you know, using our kiosk for four years. And as an alternative position, we've suggested a an exemption for good operators in the state.

We encourage you to replace the language in the bill to, mirror 2387. We had some suggested changes to 2387 with regard to first time customers. That's where all of like, 99.9% of all scams happen with the first time customer.

Those types of things are really easy to see online. We all report through NMLS, which is a a national portal. You can see all the regulatory actions against other operators in the state. We probably have zero.

Not which means operators that haven't filed bankruptcy, haven't been fined in other states, and haven't lost their license in other states, or had cease and desist orders.

We've never been fined. We've never filed bankruptcy, and we've never had any kind of regulatory action, either at the federal or state level. And we, just two days ago, stopped a scam in Hawaii

as it was happening because we're closely monitoring everything, and the person got all their money back, and that can be confirmed through the Kauai Police Department. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Very much. Next, we have Larry Lipka, general counsel for CoinFlip in opposition. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you for your time. My name is Larry Lipka. I'm the general counsel for CoinFlip. We are the largest crypto kiosk operator in the world.

We've got 17 kiosks in Hawaii, and we've got 5,000 across the world, including in places like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Italy, and Spain. I'm here today to testify against the bill because, in my opinion, it's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. While we understand that there is a problem in the kiosk industry with scams, there are a lot of techniques to stop those scams. So I'll, you know, continue with what Hilda was talking about. There are a lot of techniques to stop scams, including consumer protection holds where there's a cooling off period, and including a refund for all scam victims.

And the other bill that's a regulatory bill rather than a ban does include, it's supported by the AARP, it does include a full refund for scam victims. So with a full refund for a victim, that means that there is no harm to any consumers in this state. And that would mean that if somebody is not doing the right thing and not protecting consumers from scams, they will very quickly go out of business. And there have been over 20 states that have regulated us in the last couple years. We've been active in the state for a couple years trying to push a consumer protection bill.

And one of the biggest problems in Hawaii right now is that there's no regulation for these kiosks other than federally. There is no money transmitter licensing required. We applied for a money transmitter license, went through a very long process trying to get it, and we were told that the state does not license us. And that's different from the 40 states that have licensed us. So, you know, we think that rather than completely banning a product, which will not stop the scams, unfortunately, it will just push them to other unregulated things or, you know, frankly, it'll be gift cards or, you know, wire transfers.

And some of the data that we're hearing about the amount of scams happening through crypto kiosks, if you put it in the big picture of scams in general in this country, the largest source of scams is wire transfers. So no one's talking about banning wire transfers because scams happen, but we do support regulation. We think a very strong regulatory regime, which includes a full refund for scam victims, which is unheard of in any other financial institution. No other institutions have to refund scam victims. We think that would take care of that scam problem.

So I thank you for your time. I'd love to answer questions. I've been doing this for a long time. Thank you very much.

Okay. We also have written testimony from the Hawaii Family Caregiver Coalition in support. Will from the Hawaii Family Caregiver Coalition in support. Will Caron in support. Jerry Orton, Nadine Newlight, Blythe Kozuki, Thomas Michener all in support. Ken Y and Rory O in opposition. Carol Wakayama in support and late testimony from Linda Dorset in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Okay. Members, questions.

Good question.

Senator Wittell.

AG's office? Just super fast. As you know, the Federal Government's been taking some very strong steps to try to stop states from regulating cryptocurrency and other types of technology. Do you foresee any actions or executive order or other actions in the federal level that could stymie this bill that to move forward and be implemented?

It's possible if if, some of what they're talking about gets passed. There's possibly preemption arguments that could be made.

Okay. Thanks for Thank you, chair. Okay. Appreciate your heads up on that.

Any other questions? Can we get post CP? Yeah. You while you're walking up, you submitted a notice in your testimony. And can you can you just walk us through the anti money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism rules?

And then comment on mister Lipka's testimony around licensing. It seems like their the the the house position is to ban the the kiosks. The kupuna advocates just want it seems like they just want meaningful action to happen this year. And I'm a little concerned about fighting the tide if if there's some sort of federal regulatory regime in the works that maybe we could just cite to so that people that are compliant with, you know, emerging some sort of emerging regulation are are able to just proceed. I don't know.

Can can you help us with this, please?

Yeah. Let me try and address each one of those. If I forget something, please remind me and we'll come back

to that.

He would. He would. He would.

He would. He would. So go for it.

And the last point of which our friend from the Attorney General's office addressed, you know, we're not aware of anything in the works right now at the federal level. We're not aware of something that is parallel to, for example, their executive order on excuse me, Executive order on regulating artificial intelligence, which clearly sets out a federal plan to preempt state action here with several carve outs that I think most of the committee members are aware of,

is possible. I've been hearing about it. It's not a lot of that.

Now I'm gonna say I'm not the best person to tell you about the AML compliance requirements. Mr. Lipka is probably much better much more familiar with those particular requirements. What I can tell you, and I'm happy you brought up the United States Department of Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network's report that we attached to our testimony. I just want to read you something from this report and then put that into context for you.

That's that CBC kiosks operated by non compliant operators, and in this case CBC refers to the cryptocurrency kiosks, are especially vulnerable to abuse by scammers and other criminals. According to law enforcement, scammers have directed victims to specific CVC kiosks, in some cases across state lines, likely to avoid CVC kiosk operators with strong AMLCFT controls. In some cases, a non compliant operator may represent to other institutions that the kiosk business is registered with VINCEEN while they fail to implement AMLCFT program or other BSA obligations. That's a lot of acronyms.

Sure.

I think what it boils down to, though, is that you may have an operator who is able to implement and abide by the federal controls, but if we have 20 operators for every one who abides and the 20 others don't abide, we're in a situation where the entire ecosystem is not serving consumers' interests, that these vehicles are operating as conduits for fraud.

So, I appreciate that. I guess my thank you for laying that out. My question is around approach. One option is to ban. The other is to set our own standards that appear to sort of take a position on what maybe national best practices should be.

My question specifically, and then, you know, maybe I'll let mister Luka provide his perspective afterward is generally what we do at the state level when there is some national standard is we cite to that standard because it's usually more comprehensive and is based off of a much more mature data informed dialogue than the one we typically have at the state level. And so I guess the question is why can't we just cite to, you know, set a compliance standard with the fence and rules?

No. Thank you, chair. And that that's a great question. I know bans are something that we don't take lightly. Right?

We don't we don't support bans very often because we have to counterbalance the legitimate commercial interests with the consumer interests. But in this case, we don't actually have a federal standard to cite to. We have some FinCEN controls in place, and they may be, observed more often in the breach in this particular context. Now we do have other states that have enacted regulatory regimes, and that's sort of the Senate vehicle that's moving here. As far as moving, you know

The technologist is expensive, and you guys keep asking for it in these bills. You know, I'm tempted to put a sunset on this thing because we just don't know what the space is gonna look like in five to seven next year. You know?

And a a sunset is not a terrible idea. You know, at this point in the conversation, we're at a point where we believe that the industry is not able to police itself. There may be actors out there who can police themselves, but many of them are unwilling to take measures to police themselves, and that's why we're supporting a ban. But if we go the licensure route and we regulate and attempt to impose controls, then our office would respectfully request the resources necessary to implement those controls effectively and to engage with the companies. So it will take some willpower Sure.

To get behind our office's efforts to control this if what the the legislators respectfully want is a licensure regime.

Okay. Miss mister Lutka.

Alright. Alright. So do you have any particular questions? Did you want me to answer? Is it about

Well, he was talking and I just sort of, like, fingered

you up.

So thank you for taking the the the suggestion. But I can you comment on on just can you comment on that?

Yeah. So the Federal Government right now is working on the market structure bill, which would determine whether cryptocurrencies are a security or a commodity. And in that bill, there are a lot of other crypto regulations being propounded, and one of them is to regulate crypto kiosks, including with daily transaction limits, you know, perhaps fee caps, other compliance requirements, like phone call, like having live customer service, you know, fee refunds for scam victims. So that is being worked on now. I can't say whether or not that will pass.

I do know that in general, I've heard that, you know, you know, we support this, and a lot of senators are wanting to keep the money to their licensing regimes for their states because they think that's a system that works to regulate money service businesses like our kiosks. And, you know, we have engaged with the regulators. So, you know, I don't think there should be, like, a combative approach. We have different opinions. But, you know, that that FinCEN, statement does say that there are good and there are bad operators.

Right? There are ones that are following the rules and there are ones that are And we're here today to advocate to get those bad operators pushed out of the state, and we have a lot of ways that we can do that. And I think the refund is the most important way because if you have to refund a scam victim, you can't operate because you won't be able to make any money. You'll be put out of business very quickly. And we will we support that because we know that there is a problem in the industry, and we wanna get those bad actors pushed out.

And and then in terms of, you know

Would you consider a sunset on either version prudent given the dynamic at the federal level?

So something that, you know, this Vermont has done is a moratorium on new kiosks while they understand whether the bill that they've implemented is actually working. So right now

But that that freezes market share, and we're doing you guys a favor.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it all I mean, it wasn't my idea. Right? We're the only kiosk operator in Vermont right now because everyone else pulled out because they are unable to comply with the regulatory regime.

But, you know, I'm here on, like, most industries saying let's regulate us. Let's push the bad actors out. And, you know, we talk about, you know, there when there's a new technology, there are a bunch of people that join the space. Some of them are not doing the right thing. This is like FTX and Coinbase.

FTX stole a bunch of money from people, committed a fraud, and went out of b went out of business and their CEO's in jail. Right? But no one said let's ban all exchanges because FTX was a criminal actor. So I'm just saying that we should be treated the same way as other crypto companies, whereas let the good actors thrive and push the bad actors out, and I'm happy to be a resource to advise the state. I know things that can that can help with that.

Another thing, including the refund, is a hold period. Like I said, we know that the refund, a hold period on new consumer transactions and having live customer service and including calling people. You know, we have a requirement that our company that anybody who's 80 has to speak to us on the phone before they can transact because we know that that is the highest risk demographic by far. So we wanna talk to them to make sure that they know what they're doing, and they're buying crypto for a legitimate reason and not, you know, a a scam victim. So when you have refunds, whole periods, phone call requirement, with those things, you can keep the scam rate below 1% at a company, which is lower than what traditional finance is experiencing.

And I know that it sounds it's like a salacious headline that the scams have increased hundreds of millions of dollars from, you know, ten years ago, but ten or twelve years ago, there were no kiosks at all. So you're going from zero kiosks to now there are, you know, like, 15 or 20,000 across the the world. So, of course, the scam rate the scam amount increases when you have more access to the product.

Okay. Thank you. Quick quick question, Marty. We're here.

You guys own your budget is only you'd be much to to say you'd be much you only get to eat what you kill. Right? You only so your only division in DCC is funded through lawsuits. Right? So if we were to do a licensure regime and task you guys with this, would you agree to a CRF with a surcharge on the kiosk operators that would fund that CRF to allow you to to do this type of activity?

Thank you for that question, senator. I'd have to take that back to, Ms. Ando and Mr. Hazama to talk with them about that approach.

And also with the DFI too, right?

Correct. Yeah.

So it would probably be them?

Okay. Thanks.

Correct.

And if I

Can I find other questions?

Well, so this is the q and a part. Yeah. And I think we're done with the questions, so we're gonna we're gonna move on.

Clients too. I just wanna make sure.

We can well, let's move on because this is an opportunity for members to ask questions.

Okay.

But we're all present in the room and so we can have follow on discussions. My recommendation is gonna be to move the measure and so we can deal with that at the conclusion of the hearing. Okay, thank you. We'll move on.

Thank you very much.

The next measure is HB 1753, relating to social media. This measure requires certain social media platforms to provide an accessible mechanism for users to delete their accounts on the platform and permanently erase all personal information and sensitive personal information associated with the deleted accounts. First up, OCP with comments. Thank you very much. TechNet with comments. And Will Caron in support.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members, questions? Okay, we'll move on. Next measure is HB 1810, House Draft 2, relating to charitable solicitation. This measure establishes prompt payment and financial reporting requirements for professional solicitors that sell donated or collected non-perishable tangible property on behalf of charitable organizations. First up, Goodwill Hawaii in sport. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair. Thank you for allowing me to come today and testify. Goodwill, I'm the President and CEO of Goodwill Hawaii. Goodwill Hawaii has been a local nonprofit, its own 501C3 since 1959. And we help over 8,000 people a year in workforce development, job training, job counseling, and job placement, as well as we work with those vulnerable populations like the disabled and at risk youth.

We are here today to offer our strong support for HB 1810, HD 2. And we have been in this charitable space for many, many years. Obviously, the community knows us for our thrift stores, and we rely on the community's good grace to donate to us.

And this bill is all about transparency and trust to our donors. Anyone who's donating to Goodwill Hawaii or to anywhere else should be able to trust that their donations are going to, in fact, benefit the charity that they claim to benefit. So this bill is all about transparency and regaining the donors' trust.

And I've spoken about this before, but I would just highlight, because I have limited time, that Goodwill Hawaii is one of over 10,000 registered charities each and every year that pays into a fund to enforce charitable tax laws. And so the Attorney General does have, they are the recipient of this fund.

So they do have the work, the means in which to enforce this bill and all the other charitable tax laws. It currently stands, the fund currently stands at $5 million at the 2024. And so we hope that this bill will pass with those amendments.

Thank you very much. Dave Erdman, Retail Merchants of Hawaii, in support. I think with written testimony. We also have written testimony from Hugh Jones of Ashford and Wriston in support. Jodi Robinson of the Hawaii Alliance of Nonprofit Organizations in support. Noriko Namiki of YWCA Oahu in support.

And late testimony from Michelle Bartell of Aloha United Way and Maile Kawamura from the National Kidney Foundation of Hawaii, both in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members, questions? Okay, if not, we'll move on. The next measure is House Bill 2282, House Draft 1, relating to insurance.

This measure requires insurers to provide explanation of premium increases upon request, clarifies grounds for denial, suspension, and revocation of an adjuster and bill reviewer license, clarifies procedures for denying, suspending, and revoking an insurance producer license, and amends the notice requirements for cancellation or non renewal of a property insurance policy. First up, Insurance Division in support.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Matthew Tsujimura on behalf of the Insurance Division. The division stands in strong support of HB 2282, HD 1. We feel that it makes targeted consumer focused improvements to improve transparency as well as to update and align enforcement and licensure requirements, as well as making some technical amendments to just update the code. But happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. OCP in support. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who'd like to testify? That's right. Wait. Did I get that wrong? Oh, yeah. No. That's it. Okay. We'll move on to the last bill. Oh, any questions? Sorry.

I have a comment, not a question.

Go ahead. I got all discombobulated. Any questions? Vice Chair.

Question for Insurance Division. Has your division received complaints from individual premium holders or, say, condo associations in the last three years, which would support kind of some of the recommendations for changes that the division is supporting?

I would have to go back. Sorry. I'm Matthew Tsujimura on behalf of the Insurance Division. I would have to go back to our investigative unit to clarify whether or the amounts of complaints we've received specifically from condo associations. I can tell you the proposed amendments in HB. Yeah.

So well, so the main change in this is more so based upon some of the legislation that has that has passed and has been introduced over the past few years with regards to premium transparency as well as notification of non renewal and cancellation. Just to kind of find the middle ground of where those requirements will still be met.

But it won't be onerous to the fact that people will be getting inundated with mail that maybe they don't want or need. But with regards to the adjuster language, that's more so to update the code because prior to this there was no grounds for the division to deny someone's application for, to become an adjuster.

Perhaps if you could just have your division provide a listing of some of the complaints that have been received in this time frame because I think that would also help us address many of the concerns that we have received from condo premium holders. So in kind of supporting your legislation, that would be helpful.

Yeah. We can definitely get that information to you.

That have taken the form of pieces of legislation that you testified on.

Absolutely. We can get that to you. Yeah.

Just a quick comment. I just noticed that when we had the Senate Bills came through with the very same things that are in this House Bills, you guys either commented or opposed, but now you're in strong support. It just appears to me that it's more the who the person's name on the bill is than the bill itself. Thank you.

Thank you for joining us at the table. Okay. Next measure, House Bill 2614, House Draft 1, relating to deceptive practices. This measure requires merchants that sell cosmetics to accept returns of new or unopened goods with specified time frames and clarifies the diff the definition of "conspicuous sign" and expands required placement of return and refund policy signage. The only testifier I have registered on this bill is the Office of Consumer Protection, in support.

Thank you. And, and I recognize this is unopposed at this point. And there might be a couple of reasons for that. This bill attempts to address the situation that we've become aware of for a number of years now with stores that are brick and mortar, and they're frequently located in tourist areas, and they use high pressure sales tactics, and as a result of these high pressure sales tactics, combined with a no returns policy, we've received over 180 complaints in the last five years. The amount of people that are complaining about this is very significant.

I wanted to supplement the record that we've laid, because we cited to those 180 complaints. We've since conducted a survey of the complainants, and I want to share with you some of the results of this survey. We've had 117 survey responses, and we asked, of the people who answered the following question, 90% responded no. At the time of your purchase, did you understand the store's policy regarding returns and refunds? 90% said no.

Did you attempt to return a product or cancel a service only to be refused by a store representative? 93% said yes. Do you feel misled as a result of purchasing products without knowledge of the store's no refund policy? 98% said yes. So, what we're proposing in this bill is simply that because of a demonstrated problem that we need these stores to be banned from adopting a no returns policy.

That's all we're proposing here, and we would submit that these answers clearly demonstrate the need that these stores should not have a no returns policy. We've narrowly crafted the definition so that we've carved out folks who should not be included. And I can leave it at that, but thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay. Members, any questions?

It's the makeup store one. Right?

Okay. So, we're, but for the fire, we were being inundated. I mean, the one thing of the fire, I guess, the one tiny little thing is they're gone. I don't mind. But are you seeing them popping? Like, what areas are you seeing them really pop on? Like, they're popping up in, like, malls, like, say, malls like Alwan or Windward. I mean, is there any areas where they're really starting to grow and become a bigger, bigger problem?

Correct.

These stores are, by and large, well established. They have leases, on the ground leases with, International Marketplace, with Ala Moana. They have ground leases in Haleiwa, ground leases in Lihue. So, they are well established in the state, and but for the fires in Lahaina, they would continue to have a presence in Lahaina. The thing that is, is kind of unique about this is that we're aware that there are other competitors in the same space, well established national change that have the policy that we're going to accept returns of unopened of unopened cosmetics, new goods, and it's just a certain subset of stores that says, we're not going to accept returns.

You can imagine that's that's—what that does to the salesperson. Right? That empowers the salesperson to engage in these pressure tactics knowing there's nothing on the back end that the store is gonna be accountable for because they don't actually have to take the product back. That's what we're trying to address with this bill. I think it would really go a long way to helping.

Please go ahead.

Have you seen any of these stores before, like, firsthand?

Okay. And then.

I have.

Proridge.

Proridge. Okay. So, I was just gonna say, yeah, because we have—there is a few of, there were a few of them. I don't know if Proridge still exist. That's particular store. But does this also address them marketing outside of the confines of their own brick and mortar I guess too? Because that's kind of, like, what they do.

This bill does not take that approach. This bill—simply the most important part of this bill is to require them to accept returns within that time window. Okay. This bill does not address the confines issue, which was part of the approach that actually Maui County took a few years ago. They adopted this approach where they were gonna regulate the salespersons and prohibit them from coming out of the store to pull people into the store.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. How much money do you need for the signs?

We don't need money for the signs if you pass the no returns.

So, okay. So,you would not oppose an amendment striking the appropriation and making the date effective upon approval?

We would love this bill to continue to Ways and Means because it would enable us to have the conversation. But I would say that we don't have close striking.

Right now, it's going to Ways and Means with a blank appropriation in here where don't have a lot of appropriation capacity.

And if it's money for signs, I feel like what I'm reading is that this might not be the most critical piece of this legislation.

That's correct. It's not the most critical piece of this legislation. It, it's, we, we, wanted to have in the, the optionality here with this bill that if you didn't approve of the no returns policy, then we would have a backup where we would say, alright, violators, you get warning letters from us.

Eventually, you're gonna have to put up these big yellow signs, these big street signs so everybody will know what your policy is. But if the policy is that you have to accept returns within the window, then there's no, no need to put the sign up. Right? Because every single one of those stores will have to accept returns. There's no choice at that point and no need for the sign.

Okay. Okay. Any other questions, members? Okay. If not, thank you very much.

We'll take a quick recess.

Reconvening on this 9:30am agenda on Wednesday, March 18, 2026 to make decisions on the bills we just heard in committee. The first is House Bill 1511, House Draft 2. The recommendation is to pass this measure with amendments.

We will add a definition for the term affiliated, add a definition for the term unsolicited, and add language based on the SCIC testimony to clarify that the bill does not prohibit legitimate communications with existing customers. Members, any comments or questions? Seeing none. Passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes aye. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure is House Bill 1535, House Draft 2, relating to automated external defibrillators. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with amendments adopting the Department of Health recommended amendments around the registry. And then the DOTAX date implementing amendments. Any discussion? Yes, Senator.

I'm good to support the bill moving forward. It's important. However, given your earlier comments which are totally on point about our needs and priorities with everything going on in the world. I just have a concern with the tax credit but support the bill moving on.

Thank you. If there are no other comments or questions, then Vice Chair, passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the Members present, any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing none. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next measure is House Bill 1642, House Draft 1, relating to consumer protection. I appreciate the willingness of all the testifiers coming to have a discussion about this. The recommendation is to defer action on this measure until Tuesday, March 24 at 9:45am in this Conference Room 229 while we try and work out some amendments to pass this bill.

The next measure is House Bill 1753, House Draft 2, relating to social media. The recommendation on this measure is to also defer action on it until Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 9:45am in Conference Room 229 while we contemplate any potential amendments.

Next up is House Bill 1810, House Draft 2, relating to charitable solicitation. The recommendation is to pass this measure with a defective effective date of July 1, 2050. Members, any discussion? Okay. Seeing none. Passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the Members present, any voting with reservations? Objections? Hearing none. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. The next measure is House Bill 2282, House Draft 1, relating to insurance. The recommendation is to pass this measure with a defective effective date of July 1, 2050. Members, any comments or questions? Okay. If not, passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the Members present, any voting with reservations, objections? Hearing none. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. And the last measure on this agenda is House Bill 2614, House Draft 1, relating to deceptive practices. The recommendation is to pass this measure out with technical non substantive amendments, striking the appropriation section and amending the bill to be effective upon approval. Members, any questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none. Passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the Members present, are there any voting with reservations? Objections? Hearing none. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned.