Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection

Great afternoon, everyone. Calling the committee on labor and technology to order. We will begin with our 301 agenda. Today's March 23, Monday, 2026. We're in Conference Room 225.

Just a few housekeeping announcements. This meeting is being streamed live on the Hawaii Senate YouTube channel. In the unlikely case of technical failures, we'll reconvene here in Conference Room 225 on 03/25/2026 at 3PM. For all testifiers, including those on Zoom, we ask that you sign in your written testimony. If your oral testimony is different from your written testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be one minute.

The content including the hearing notice, copies of the measures and testimony can be found on the legislature's website. If time permits, decision making will occur after we hear from all those offering testimony. First up on our 301 agenda is House bill 2455 House draft two. This is relating to employment practices. First up on our list is Keith Hayashi, superintendent, DOE.

Anyone from the DOE here? I know I saw him earlier. Okay. Ricky, anyone on Zoom for DOE? No one present Chair on Zoom.

Okay. Move on. Kamakana Kaimuloa UPW.

Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW testimony and support.

Okay. Testimony support. Thank you. Yasmine Chaney. Did I get that right this time?

Executive director for the Hawaii status commission, Hawaii state Commission on the Status of Women.

Hi. Thank you. Yasmin Cheney for the Commission on the Status of Women. I'll stand on our in testimony and support. Thank you for your consideration.

Okay. Thank you so much. And that completes our list of registered testifiers on House Bill 2455. I'll also note that, we did receive nine in support, zero in opposition, and zero comments. Anyone else who wishes to testify on House bill 2455 House draft 2?

If not, members, any questions? If not, we'll proceed to our next agenda item, which is House Bill 2165 House draft 2. This is relating to the Hawaii employment security law. And first up on our list is director Butay from DLIR. Aloha.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Elefante, madam Vice Chair Lamosao, and Senator Moriwaki. I'm Jade Butay, director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. We stand on our testimony in strong support, and thank you for hearing this bill. And we just want to respectfully request an amendment in Section two to move the amendment pertaining to limiting collections from subsection a to subsection c. This change preserve the the proper legal structure.

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you so much. And you'll be around if there's any questions. Thank you. Okay. That's all I have listed, registered to testify on this.

In total, we have four sorry. Two in support, two in opposition, and two comments. Anyone else on House bill 2165 House draft two? Okay. If not, members, questions?

Okay. Vice Chair Lamasal, question for DLIR.

Thank you, director, for your testimony. I just wanted to know, base I I know this is this is one of your folks' priorities as well even if it didn't make into the admin package. But I just wanted to clarify based on the memo that you folks did receive from, department the US Department of Labor.

Like, would this Bill I know it's guidance, but I just wanna know if you folks had any contact with them in regards to this bill to, I guess, have any discussion in regards to it following that guidance, it being okay, and things like in that nature.

Because I I don't know if I can see there's, like, a lot of issues with some of the unions that could be impacted by this, while they are on strike. So I just wanted to know if you folks consulted with them, to make sure that you folks would be in compliance, I guess, along following their guidance.

I mean, we we have regular contact with them, but the guidance is I mean, it would show though that we would be nonconforming. So because it you know, the unemployment insurance is it's a federal program, and they give us the the federal funds to administer it. So we have to-

So this Bill, it would be conforming to their guide their their guidance then?

If we adjust the, you know, that subsection a, it would the the section two, it would be-

With your, your okay. With your amendments. Okay. So you but you haven't had any discussion as of recent in regards to this particular Bill and also your amendments, so.

No. I wouldn't say not this particular Bill, but we we always have discussions with with, you know, with them because we wanna make sure that, you know, we're we're in compliance.

Exactly. And so that was my thing is is that if you're not in discussion and this Bill moves forward and you're still nonconforming, and so that's why I'm trying to figure out if if they said it, if this would be okay.

Yeah. This would be conforming. If we like I said, if you change the, you know, that sub the section to the the requested amendments that we propose.

Okay. I I think if if I may to add on to Vice Chair's comment and concern, I think there were some concerns raised by some of the unions regarding not in particular, that particular section, but striking out language as it relates to on page two subs from lines 12 to 14 where if labor unions are in a dispute. And I think what she's trying attempting to get at is if you had any verbal communication or written communication subsequent to the January 8 letter from DOL?

Not subsequently, but not for this particular Bill. I mean, I know our administrator, you know, she attended a conference and but it was more about the future of UI under the current administration. But under under labor disputes, and, you know, as as long as the union has a has a hiring hold, they wouldn't it wouldn't impact them. Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Members, any further questions on this? Senator Moriwaki?

Director, hi. I don't understand the deletion on page seven, section c of the two years versus is it forever? What why was it changed from two years to I guess, it's you can claim forever. Go after a person forever.

Because you're-

What that means.

The unemployment insurance, it's it's, you know, it's a public it it's a it's a it's it's public money. And it's the the requirement is we have to, you know, get get the money back. So we cannot if if we say the lim you limit it to two years, then after two years, it's supposed to be but it also goes into to the integrity of the of the the program.

But it seems to me to keep it open ended, you can go after a person forever.

No? But we, you know, we have, waivers and, you know, we have flexible payment plans.

So is it what was the rationale, I guess, for for taking out the two year limits statute? I guess it's a statute of limitation of two years. No? Can you explain explain what that means? I don't.

It's to maintain the integrity of the program because the the requirements under The US do well is that we have to recover overpayment. But, you know, depending on if there's a but we there's some protections where, you know, if if someone, you know, due to hardship, we we can you know, we have waivers and flexible repayment plans, But we cannot just say after two years, we we just waive it.

I guess I I'm not sure why you you are deleting the two year restriction. Is that federal law or, you know?

Let me ask our administrators. She she's the subject matter expert on.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Anne Eustaquio, unemployment insurance administrator. So the two years, Senator, is two years for the offset credit. And so not two years that of a statute of limitations. I think that's the misunderstanding.

The tax that the the benefits of that were overpaid to an individual is due for life. It is a liability, a legal liability that's due. Even the statute says that.

But why does it change? Years before and now you're you're-

So this change is not a statute statute of liability change. What it does is it's just allowing us to use a offset credit after two years. So currently, right now, the statute states that a claimant is overpaid, and if they come back and they still get additional benefits, future benefits, and they haven't paid back all of their overpayment yet, if it's within two years, we can offset their benefits.

Oh, so this is a knowledge offset.

beyond? But if it's beyond two years, currently, we cannot offset the benefit. So what would happen is they would come in to receive additional benefits, future benefits, and say they would still owe us benefits. They would be taking money from a trust fund that they owed money to.

I see.

So we are in agreement that, you know, claimants have to still continue to survive while they're on unemployment. So we really like the amendment that was made where it's the as long it's no less than 250, 50% of what they owe and no less than 250. But we're just saying it's in the wrong area. It was put in the wrong the amendment was incorrectly put in the statute, so we wanna move it from a to c.

Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Members, any further questions? What we'll do for this, seeing that the CPN chair is here and wanna be respectful of their time, is, I'll I'll excuse you for now. We'll call for a final test for any final testifiers on this measure, House Bill 2165 House Draft 2, and then we'll if there's further questions, we can ask that.

So right now, at this point in time, seeing that CPN committee is here, Ricky, we're gonna from IT, we're gonna recess, this three zero one agenda and come back to it. So recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. Sorry for the delayed start. This is our 3PM joint agenda between the committee on labor and technology and commerce and consumer protection. I'd like to welcome Chair Keohokalole and your members, for joining us for a joint hearing and meeting with us this afternoon. We just have one item on our agenda.

And before we begin, just a few housekeeping announcements. It's 03/23/2026. We're in Conference Room 225. And this meeting is being streamed live on the Hawaii State Senate's YouTube channel. In the unlikely case of technical affairs, this meeting will reconvene here in Conference Room 225 on 03/25/2026 at 3PM.

For all testifiers, including those on Zoom, we ask that you stand on your written testimony. If your oral testimony is different from your written testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be one minute. The content, including the hearing notice, copies of the measures, and testimony can be found on the legislature's website.

If time permits, decision making will occur after we hear from those offering testimony. As I mentioned, one item, House Bill 1509, House Draft 2. This is relating to workers' compensation. First up is Director Butay.

Aloha, Chair Elefante, Chair Keohokalole, and Members of the Committee. Jade Butay for DLIR. We stand on our testimony in support. This measure helps ensure injured workers receive timely medical care by requiring employers to approve their treatment plans within a clear day 10 day timeframe. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. DHRD, Director Hashimoto. Okay. Providing comments and requesting an amendment. Thank you. Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW. In support. Thank you. And on Zoom, Nancy Monden.

Members, I support this bill. I was an injured worker, and after a back injury and a simple test, just a simple test was requested. And all there was silence. And it took years for me to recover. Some days I couldn't even walk my dog. I'm asking, technology has moved very quickly throughout the past years, yet treatment approvals remain slow for decades.

I support this bill. Injured workers deserve timely seven day decisions. I know you're moving it to ten. Seven days for a simple test is much more reasonable. Ten days, I understand, for surgeries, but delayed care is delayed healing. It's not silence. Thank you very much for your time.

Okay. Thank you. That completes a list of registered testifiers that have registered with us. Anyone else on House Bill 1509, House Draft 2? If not members, any questions? Quick question. Yeah. Senator McKelvey, question.

I don't know who this would be, DHRD, anybody else. But I guess I'll just ask it out loud. Why the back and forth? Why not just cut to the chase and say that if they don't respond or the plan is, you know, or failed to file certain documents that the the plan is automatically deemed to be accepted. Okay. So this is like trying to, I guess, help businesses address, you know, getting them due process. Is that the change?

You might wanna come up.

Thanks for the question. Yeah. DHRD's position is that the penalty is not necessary because the statute already provides that when there's no response from the employer to a treatment plan, it's already automatically approved. So it seems unnecessary to penalize employers for not filing something that already gives the benefit of the doubt to the employee.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it, Chair.

Any other questions?

Excuse me, Chair. We have one more testifier on Zoom.

Oh, hi, JoAnn. Good afternoon.

Hi there. Director is there. I'm just stand by in case Director was going to use me to answer any questions.

Okay. Yes. You did provide testimony in person, and we do have your written testimony as well. Thank you. And then Members, I'll note that the total there were six in support, three in opposition, and three comments. Any further questions? If not, we'll do a short recess. Short recess.

Thank you, everyone. Chairs having conferred, this is reconvening our 3pm joint agenda between Labor and Technology and Commerce and Consumer Protection. We do have a recommendation. Recommendation is that we are going to pass with amendments.

We're going to accept and adopt testimony from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union, IBEW 1186, which we will revert back from ten days to seven days. And then finally, we're gonna change the effective date to January 1, 2077.

And then in addition to that, we're going to strike out language dealing with the employer who fails to file a response within a ten day period shall be fined $500. So we're gonna strike that language out. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote. Chair votes aye with amendments.

Okay, Members. We are voting on HB 1509, HD 2. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair also votes aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. For the CPN Committee, the recommendation is the same, passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Okay, Members. Voting on HB 1509, HD 2. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

This concludes our joint hearing. We're adjourned for the 3:00 joint. Thank you.

K.

Thank you for everyone's patience. We're reconvening our 301 single labor and technology agenda. We left off at House bill 2165 House Draft two, relating to the Hawaii Employment Security Law. I'll take a last call for anyone that wishes to testify on this. Yes.

Miss Tokusato. Aloha and welcome.

Thank you. I'm Joli Tokusato, with United hotel workers Local five. I just we did put in written testimony, but I wanted to make very clear that Local five believes that this that you don't need to change the law because you already have the discretion to, exempt strike strike striking workers from job search requirements. And I just wanted to point out that, when you're on strike, at least for our members, they're not just sitting at home doing nothing. They're actually on the strike line, which is very, very difficult. They also, you know, they're already taking a financial hit, and it's very difficult for them even if, you know, to get unemployment insurance as well. It has to, impact the employers a certain amount before they even qualify. So it's not like it's easy for them anyway. So we just wanted you to, you know, please know that we're strongly opposed to this, measure. And thank you so much for letting me testify.

Okay. Thank you. As a follow-up to that, thank you for being here and for your testimony. If the committee were to decide to restore language, that is previously deleted regarding labor dispute for employment or employer relationship that continues to exist, would you folks be okay with that?

We think it's better. Yeah. Then yeah. Better than what it is now. Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah. There's still a little bit of things that, you know, we'd probably like to, you know, talk about as far as, like, the statute of limitations and things, but that was the most important part of it that we thought. Okay. Yeah.

Thank you.

K. Any questions for Local five? If not, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

K. Final call for anyone on House bill 2165 House draft two. I'll note that there were twoin support, two in opposition, and I'd like to call back DLIR director and Anne.

Okay. So I know in follow-up to vice chair Lama Sal's questions that she had regarding your January 8 letter from the Department of Labor, wouldn't you consider that is not so much binding in law, but more just federal guidance in terms of a letter, per se?

Or would you feel that based on their letter, is your interpretation that our current existing statute would be in violation of federal law or based on that letter?

Yeah. That would be the letter would be our interpretation that we would not be conforming with the federal guidance.

Okay. And usually, DLIR's past practice is to follow federal conforming guidance despite if administrations change.

So in 2025, DLIR created this stat this section of the statute. K. This measure was entered in 2025. So prior to 2025, we did not have this section in the statute that allowed us to waive the work search requirements for those during a labor dispute. In 2025, that was entered into the statute.

We were notified by USDOL in January that we were out of compliance I see. Under the statute. And so conformity is a requirement for our federal grant. It is not discretionary in any manner. And so when they sent us that letter, and it was quite clear with all the question and answers, so it wasn't just sent to us.

There were several other states that they sent it to as well who are out of conformity. And so this the conformity letter was extremely clear to let us know that we are out of conformity with the the insert of that language in 2025.

And that's why we're concerned.

Okay.

Okay.

Certain unions with the hiring hold

Yes.

Would be

So so let me ask as a follow-up to that. So I know there were some labor unions that were in opposition. But through further discussions, it's my understanding that DLIR, you folks do have a list of hiring halls, even though, perceptually, in the letter that you receive, it strikes out language relating to individuals involved in the labor dispute.

So can you explain a little bit more about the list that you have and if that conforms with work searches, if someone that is part of a labor dispute and if that qualifies, even though the language is here proposed to strike out that section?

Right. So federal requirements do not allow us to carve out a specific group of individuals to not have to look for work. And so by doing so, by not allowing, not having labor dispute individuals not look for work is a carve out. And that's why we're not in conformity. But within the conformity requirement, though in in the letter, it states that, unions who have a hiring hall and their members are in good standing, then they do not have to look for work.

And so they do not have to perform the work search function. And so DLIR has an authorized list of unions that are on the authorized list to allow their members, as long as they are in good standing, to not have to look for work during a labor dispute.

K. And then final question I have actually 2 part question to that is I know, Schwarm had some concerns, and they've wrote in their testimony. And has that's something that DLIR has looked at and maybe addressing and working with SHORM to address some other concerns.

Most definitely. We actually want, compliance. Right? Compliance makes our job easier. And so we wanna work with employers and claimants to comply with the statute.

And whatever we need to do to help them do that, we're here to do that. We have something called CIDES. It's a program funded by USDOL. It's a free program for employers to report wage separation information to US to to us, to Department of Labor, when someone files a claim. And so we had, back in 2024, about 20 sessions for employers to learn sites, learn how to use it so they can electronically file their separation reports.

The reason why that time period is so tight is because USTOL has tight time periods on our core measures on first timeliness payments. And so we're supposed to pay a claimant when due. And if we don't pay when due, we're not meeting those timeliness payments. And so we have all of these, strict dates as well that we need to meet so we can meet these timeliness payments through USDOL.

But, definitely, we would love to reach out to all employers to help them be able to meet the five days by using this site's application that allows them to electronically file.

K. And then finally, so our understanding is that you need this bill to be in conformance with the January 8 letter and the federal rule guidelines. So without it, our current law would be in violation of federal federal rules and and guidelines as it relates to the unemployment security law. Is that correct?

As it relates to conformity with the unemployment insurance security law. Correct.

And so our grant currently is a little over 14,000,000 with US Department of Labor administratively to run the program. Also, employers in the state of Hawaii receive the federal the FUTA tax credit. Without that FUTA tax credit, employers will be paying 6.46% FUTA tax instead of 0.0% FUTA tax on the 7,000 taxable, limit. And so that's a big difference. We can't afford for employers to lose that FUTA tax credit and our administrative fund to, you know, to fund the administrative expenditures of this program.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay. If not, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. We'll move on to our next item on our agenda, which is House Bill 1515 House Draft two, relating to workers' compensation. First up on our list is Director Butai. Sorry, I should have just asked you to just stay there. K.

Thank you. Director Hashimoto, D Heard. Thank you. And then that's all I have listed to testify on House Bill 1515. I'll note that there were seven in support, one in opposition, and one comment.

Is there anyone else that wishes to testify in this measure? Okay. If not, members, any questions? Okay. We'll move on.

House Bill 1514, House Draft Two, relates to workers' compensation. And first up on our list is Director Butay.

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair, Senator .... Okay.

Thank you. Director Hashimoto. Okay. Thank you. And then on Zoom, Nancy Monden. Hello again.

Hi. Chair and members, I strongly oppose this bill. Imagine you worked your whole life and suddenly you cannot return due to an injury. Your job is your identity, your purpose, your routine. It's all gone.

Grief follows denial, anger, depression, and a struggle to accept who you are. Only then can vocational rehab begin. It requires a physician assessment of limitations, a job analysis, a labor market survey, a specific services needed to support successful return to work. This is part of the vocational rehab plan. This bill mandates 100 and twenty days.

This is unrealistic. This particular plan you're talking about affects the worker and their entire family's future. Recovery takes time. This bill takes it away. I thank you very much, chair and members.

Okay. Thank you so much, Nancy. Okay. That's all I have that is registered to testify. Anyone else on House Bill 1514 House Draft two?

Okay. I'll note that for this one, we had five in support, four in opposition, and zero comments. With that members, any questions? K. I have a question for DLIR, please.

Okay. So on this one, I know the language original language was ninety days, and it was extended in the house draft to 120. However, it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, in the reading of this bill, if there is more time that is needed for the vocational rehabilitation plan, you could have that discretion director to extend it as need be with no cap on the amount of extensions. Is that a correct understanding? This is on page seven of the bill.

On a level set with you, I'm not I'm not an expert on workers' comp, but, my subject matter expert is on on the Zoom. She's had her limit with the range. So

Hello, Joanne. I don't know if you were able to hear that question. If not,

I Idid. Thank you very much. Yes. That is from 90 to 120. And it does allow currently and with this proposal, we would allow for the director's discretion with no cap. That is correct.

And have you seen currently under existing law, have you had to have any is there any issue with with this and not getting the VR plans in a timely manner?

No. The the purpose really is to define some type of timeline, because we do have some VR plans that extend out a significant amount of time. And so each work comp case is or each work comp, well, case is it's a case by case. And so some are more complex than others with a tight labor market. So director's discretion is always important.

And so this would allow for that. Okay.

Thank you. And if you can identify yourself for the record, please.

Joanne Vindinhar, administrator, disability compensation division. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you so much, Joanne. And thank you, director. Unless members, you have any further follow-up questions? K. If not, thank you so much.

We did call for final call on that. So we'll move on. Our next item is House Bill 2458, House Draft 3. This is relating to surveillance pricing. First up on our list is Dominic Jancaterino. Is that correct?

Close enough. Jancaterino.

Jancaterino. DCCA. Right?

Yes.

I'm sorry for mispronouncing your last name.

You're fine. Happens all the time. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Dominic Jancaterino. I'm enforcement attorney with OCP. We submitted written testimony...

If you can speak a little closer to the mic so we could hear you, please. Thank you.

OCP. We submitted written testimony. We're standing on testimony, and we're available for questions.

Okay. Thank you. Nate Hix for Hawaii Public Health Institute. After Nate Hix is Steve Teves. Aloha. Welcome.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Senator Moriwaki. Nate Hix with Hawaii Public Health Institute in support. Surveillance pricing allows corporations to extract the maximum amount, set different prices based on people's income, ZIP code, or other personal identified information.

This is standard practice for some areas like airline pricing. I think we're kinda used to it. But we think groceries has got to be off the table for that. We can't extract people's income, dollars earned for basic things like grocery prices that should be off the table.

And so that's why we don't want this to, or we want this to pass. We don't want this practice to continue to ensure that people's hard earned dollars aren't going to buy broccoli or whatever the case might be. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Nate. Steve Teves in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Senator Moriwaki. Steve Teves for Safeway. This is our first appearance on this bill. We did not appear before. We have concerns about the bill, but we know there were other entities who are opposing it because of some of the vagueness of the definitions. I'm here today because for whatever reason, the loyalty awards exemption was removed at the last hearing.

And as I have here, if you look at, and it's what's in there for the original bill, the HD 1, the HD 2? And the definition by itself says, and this is the definition from the original bill that talks about readily available to the public, posts on the website, consistently for all consumers. So we don't understand why it was taken out.

And as I think everyone knows who shops locally, Safeway, Foodland, we all have loyalty programs. And it's to lower prices, buy two get one free. So I don't understand why it was take out. And our request is if you are gonna move the bill forward that the loyalty exemption be put back in. Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Senator Moriwaki.

Thank you. Dave Erdman from Retail Merchants of Hawaii. Hey, Dave.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Can you hear me?

Yes. Please proceed.

My name is Dave Erdman. I'm the Interim President and CEO of Retail Merchants of Hawaii. Retail Merchants of Hawaii respectfully opposes HB 2458, HD 3. I have two comments here. Retailers use promotions, loyalty programs, and targeted discounts to help customers save money in a highly competitive environment. This bill is drafted too broadly and could unintentionally restrict those common pro consumer practices.

Particularly for groceries and household essentials. Last comment is that at the time when Hawaii residents are looking for every possible way to save on groceries, this bill risk reducing discounts, limiting consumer choice, and making food less affordable rather than more affordable. For these reasons, Retail Merchants of Hawaii respectfully urges the committee to hold HB 2458. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Dave.

Thank you. Appreciate your time.

Genevieve Mumma for Hawaii Hunger Action Network. Okay. On Zoom, IT?

Not present, Chair.

Not present. Okay. And then we have Nina DiSalvo for Towards Justice. Also on Zoom.

Not present, Chair.

Okay. That completes the list of registered testifiers on House Bill 2458, House Draft 3. Anyone else that wishes to testify in this measure? If not, Members, I'll note that there are 11 in support, three in opposition, and three comments. Any questions?

I have a question for DCCA, OCP, please. Hi, Dominic. Thanks for being here. So I know in your testimony, your request is for 450,000 for positions and enforcement. Is that correct?

That's correct. Yes.

And then one other question I had for you is, I don't know how closely you've studied this issue, but could electronic surveillance technology also incorporate use of personalized algorithmic pricing?

Personalized algorithm...

So if you were to use personalized algorithmic algorithm pricing in electronic surveillance technology, could that be enforceable?

So the term itself, I should preface this by saying I'm not a technologist, and I'm not a computer scientist. But the term itself is something of a term of art depending on what statute you're looking at. There are 19 states that have comprehensive privacy laws. Hawaii is not among them.

However, that term itself can be defined, if you look at Colorado's law, for example, or California's law, for example, that are cited too in our testimony. It can mean different things. However, I think we're referring generally to the same idea whereas, you know, prices are based on what your habits are, your location, your salary, what you're willing to spend.

So if you've ever had that experience where, you know, you're looking for a flight on a certain website and then you look, you know, five hours later and the price is different or changes, that's kind of what I presume we're talking about in terms of algorithmic pricing for, like, per the individual.

However, in this case, it relates to food primarily.

This bill began with the SNAP and the... Yep. So we are talking about food. In our testimony, we do reference a Target, a study about Target, the company, where the price of something on the in when someone was standing in the inside of the store was $148 greater than when they're outside. So, yes, I think we're talking about the same... Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. And then a final question I have is I know your request is for positions and funding. But could DCCA I know in other states, I think like New York, they work, the Attorney General's Office is the enforcement agency.

So if this bill were to move forward, is that something that DCCA could, if you were to get those positions, work with the Attorney General's Office? Because I know they have a special investigative division that potentially could handle situations like this.

I don't wanna get over my skis here, but I think it is something that we could do.

Mr. Moriarty. Hello. Thank you. Thank you, Dominic.

Thanks, Dom. Yeah. And I just wanna...

If you can identify yourself, please.

Thank you, Chair. My name is Mana Moriarty. I'm the Executive Director at OCP. Appreciate the question. And we have been in discussions with the Attorney General's Office about how various measures regulating artificial intelligence, regulating surveillance technology, surveillance pricing, as well as privacy could be enforced in the future, perhaps using resources shared by our offices.

But, as it stands, you know, this measure is drafted in a manner that OCP is the primary enforcement authority here, and we share concurrent jurisdiction with the Attorney General's Office.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moriarty. Any questions? Senator Moriwaki.

Yes. Thank you. So how would you enforce if this bill were passed? What would be the next steps?

Well, we'd love to hire somebody who can help us understand what type of data the companies are collecting and what if this data is actually being used to inform their pricing. So in the scope of this measure, we're talking about surveillance pricing.

So it would require, number one, an understanding of what the companies are collecting from users, how the companies are using that to inform their pricing. As the Chair mentioned earlier, this could get into areas like how an algorithm works.

Because certain data inputs are used to generate an output, what the price would look like on the back end. We'd love to have somebody who's knowledgeable helping us to figure out how the inputs lead to the outputs.

So I guess my concern is that we see the problems, but we're regulating without knowing what we're regulating. It sounds like that you're really wanting to have some kind of a person, a technologist, or a regulator or AG, member of a group to actually identify what is it we're regulating, how do we enforce?

We would be, this agency clearly makes us... This bill, excuse me, clearly makes us the agency who is regulating. So we would need to have the resources to know how to go about and do our jobs well.

So but I guess my question is we're prohibiting actions when we don't quite know what it is that we're regulating and who's to do the enforcement.

I appreciate the comment. I think you'll see in our written testimony, there's some examples out there of some real life harms that have occurred to consumers from what we might call surveillance pricing as defined in this bill.

So I would submit respectfully that there are harms occurring from surveillance pricing. We do need to be specific about how we define the term and how we go about enforcing.

So you do have an arm in DCCA to actually enforce if we pass this to enforce surveillance pricing? Seems like you're trying to get somebody in to identify what to look for.

Yeah. This bill would give us the authority and the responsibility to go in and look. What I'm suggesting is that we need a a skilled set of personnel to help us identify, identify the issues so we can take appropriate action if we're presented with evidence of a violation or we have a suspected violation.

And so what was brought up with this loyalty program? Is that something that we need to carve out of this? Or, you know, so that we're protecting the things that are... I mean, we're enforcing against the things that are bad about surveillance pricing versus things that are helpful.

I'm glad you raised the question. It's a great question. And we advocated for the removal of loyalty programs from this measure. The reason we advocated is that loyalty programs have proven to be the experiment ground for all kinds of surveillance pricing, some of it which has led to consumer harms.

For example, Delta Airlines CEO announcing on a shareholder call that we are going to, we have this great new surveillance pricing technology that will allow us to charge customers the maximum amount that they're willing to pay. We think that could be a problem. But there are sort of solutions.

This is a complicated and evolving area. I'm sure you've heard that before, but it is. One of the fixes that we identified in our testimony on this measure was that the California Assembly recently amended their bill to say to focus specifically on increases, price increases due to surveillance pricing. So it's actually in the definition now of surveillance pricing. It only applies to price increases.

We think something like that should be part of the conversation that we're having when we're defining the terms and we're addressing testimony from, you know, the previous testifiers who've testified that, you know, there's some benefits from reducing prices through these programs. Well, if we focus the bill on price increases, we're narrowing the focus to the more problematic behavior.

Okay. But that wasn't included in your testimony though.

It was included in our testimony, just an observation about what the California Assembly did. We're not necessarily recommending that at this time. We're at a really early stage in trying to...

To amend the bill to address that. Because it seems like that's at least a start. You don't want prices to increase based on your surveillance. You want, if anything, to decrease and actually make it.

Yeah. The point of our testimony on that was simply to sort of spark this conversation that this looks like, you know, it could be a promising way to narrow the legislation.

Really broad, not knowing what it is you're enforcing. Because you have to ultimately enforce if you're prohibiting.

Right. Unfortunately, we haven't, you know, fully digested everything that's going on. So it's a little early to for us to make a concrete recommendation on that.

Any further questions? Any further questions? Thank you for being here, Mr. Moriarty. Very helpful for the conversation. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. I think last call on House Bill 2458, House Draft 3. If not, I'll note that there were a total of 11 in support, three in opposition, and three comments.

With that, we'll move on to our next and our last item, which is House bill 2137 House draft three. This is relating to artificial intelligence. And first up on our list is Ashley Tanaka from the AG's office. Aloha and welcome.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, Senator Moriwaki. Ashley Tanaka, deputy attorney general. We did submit comments just, focusing on one paragraph of the bill that we have previously testified on in front of a house committee. And we had suggested deletion of that paragraph due to ambiguity with wording, That house committee had followed our recommendation and deleted the paragraph, but then a subsequent house committee reinserted the same exact paragraph. So we are again suggesting deletion.

And in the alternative, we did recommend alternative amendments if this committee does not, wish to delete the entire paragraph. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Deputy Attorney General Tanaka. On Zoom, Adan Downey for the Computer and Communications Industry Association.

Yeah. Good afternoon, chairs, member of the committee. My name is Adan Downey representing the Computer and Communications Industry Association. While we stand on our written comments, I wanted to share a little more about our proposed amendments. While we support protecting citizens from AI misuse, House Bill 2137 currently risks inadvertently chilling free expression through overly broad definitions.

Our provided proposed amendments create a more workable framework by focusing on three key areas. First, targeting bad actors. We suggest shifting liability away from neutral developers or hosting services and towards those who intentionally use AI to deceive. By requiring actual knowledge, we ensure the law punishes the harm, not the technology. Second, protecting free speech.

To avoid a speech chilling effect, we recommend narrowing the definition of digital imitation to specific identifiable individuals and strengthening the exemptions for parody news or satire, those protected by the First Amendment. Third, preventing frivolous litigation. We propose capping statutory damages at $25,000 and requiring proof of concrete harm such as financial or reputational injury rather than vague, ignisable claims. These targeted changes will punish malicious deep fakes without compromising Hawaii's digital economy or constitutional rights. Thank you.

K. Thank you, mister Downey, for being here, and thank you for your testimony. Yasmin Cheney from the state Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Woman. K. Thank you.

We stand on our written testimony in support.

K. That completes our list of registered testifiers on House bill 2137 House draft three. Anyone else that wishes to testify in this measure? K.

If not, members, any questions? K. If not, we'll take a brief recess. Recess subject to the call of the chair.

Thank you, everyone, for your patience. We're reconvening our 301 labor and technology agenda. We are now in decision making. We'll start off first with House Bill 2455 House Draft 2. This is relating to employment practices.

On this one here, we are going to recommend that we pass with amendments, and the amendments will be technical and non substantive amendments. And we're gonna defect the date to 01/01/2077. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote, Chair votes aye.

Members are voting on HB 2455 HD 2, recommendation of the Chairs to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair also votes aye. Senator Ihara is excused and will be for the remainder of the agenda. Senator Moriwaki.

Aye. Senator Fevella is also excused and will be for the remainder of the agenda as well. Chair recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thank you so much, Senator Lamosao. Our next item is House Bill 2165 House Draft 2. This is relating to the Hawaii employment security law. Chair is gonna recommend that we pass with amendments.

We're gonna accept the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations proposed amendments in their testimony. In addition to that, we're going to restore language on page two, lines 12 to 14, which had the language originally as stricken for subsection d, which, basically, we're gonna restore this language, which individuals involved in a labor dispute and for whom an employer employee relationships continues to exist. Notwithstanding the fact that DLIR does have a list of union halls that that if you don't have to comply with the actively search.

So we just asked that DLIR if you could just get further clarification from the Department of Labor regarding the January 8 letter, if that is still, an issue. But our understanding, is that, we do need this measure to comply with federal law.

So if you could just get further clarification. So we'll restore that language, and then we're gonna defect the date to 01/01/2077. Any further discussion, comments, questions, or concerns? Okay. If not, pass with amendments.

Vice Chair for the vote, Chair votes aye.

Okay. Members voting on HB 2165 HD 2. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none, all members vote aye.

Your recommendation is adopted. Okay.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Next item is House Bill 1515 House Draft 2. This is relating to workers' compensation. Chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments. We're gonna accept and adopt test suggested amendments from the chapter of the American Physical Therapy Association Hawaii, APTA Hawaii in their testimony, which specifically has to do with the functional capacity examinations.

And then we're going to defect the date to 01/01/2077. And then in the committee report, we're gonna note the concerns by the Society for Human Resource Management, SHORM, as we know them for their acronym and their concerns that they stated in their written testimony. And with that, any further discussion? Okay. If not, Vice Chair for the vote, Chair votes aye.

Okay. Members, we're voting on HB 1515 HD 2. Recommendation of the Chairs to pass with amendments. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none, Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you so much, Vice Chair. Next item is House Bill 1514, House Draft 2. This is also related to workers' compensation. Chair's gonna recommend here that we pass with amendments. We're just gonna defect the date to January 1, 2077. And I know there was some testimony from advocates about the 120 days.

But the Director still has that discretion in hearing from testimony to extend that as need be for the vocational rehabilitation plan. So with that, pass with amendments just defecting the date to January 1, 2077. With that, any further questions? If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Okay. We're voting on HB 1514, HD 2. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thank you so much. Our next item is House Bill 2458 House draft three. This is relating to surveillance pricing. For this one and hearing some testimony from DCCA, I feel that we do need to study this issue a little bit further.

So what we're going to do is we're gonna change this bill into a study and request that DCCA and OCP take a closer look at that. I know there was a request for positions for that. So whatever is needed for that. For for our first study, we'll blank the appropriations for the study on that, and then we'll defect the date to 01/01/2077. Any further comments, questions, or concerns on that?

Okay. With that, Chair's gonna recommend we pass with amendments. Vice Chair for the vote, Chair votes aye.

Voting on HB 2458 HD 3. Recommendation of the Chair is passed with amendments. Anyone present wants to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none, Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thank you so much. And then our last item is House Bill 2137 House Draft three. This is relating to artificial intelligence. Chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments.

We're gonna adopt and accept the attorney general's amendments in their testimony. We're also going to adopt and accept the computer and communication industry associations proposed amendments in their testimony, and then we're gonna defect the date to 01/01/2077. Any further questions on that? If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Members are voting on HB 2137 HD 3. Recommendation of the Chair's pass with amendments. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you. That concludes our agenda for today. We're adjourned.