Judiciary Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (31)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB441
· 6 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “Senate Bill 441. Senator Hester, you recognized to go to the end of”
|
TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. | Hester | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1865
Act 976
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/14/25 @ 7:47 PM) Added HB1865 House Committee on Judiciary Tuesday, April 15, 2025 8:00 A…”
|
TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD. | Vaught | Notification that HB1865 is now Act 976 |
|
HB1877
Act 977
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…aty, Jr. CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1877 S. Meeks CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION…”
|
CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1877 is now Act 977 |
|
HB1033
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…VENTION ACT OF 2025. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CR…”
|
TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER … | McCullough | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1136
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING AC…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT … | Achor | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1141
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. HB1141 R. Scott TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE A…”
|
TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION … | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1430
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ON WHEN A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST. HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1431
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE … | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1473
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1481
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GING IN COURSE OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE PEACE EX PARTE. HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHI…”
|
TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1535
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVIC…”
|
TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS … | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1553
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBU…”
|
TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1655
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; AND TO CREAT…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1663
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMO…”
|
TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1664
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR PROBATION OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE. HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS…”
|
TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED … | K. Brown | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1676
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; … | Womack | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1678
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INC…”
|
TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE … | Long | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1754
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY … | Gonzales | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1765
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CONSENSUAL ACTIVITIES INVOLVING INTIMATE DIGITAL FORGERIES. HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE … | Underwood | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1823
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1823 Duffield TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AN…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND NONCONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025; AND TO … | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1885
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. Page 2 of 3 HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW EN…”
|
CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE … | Barnett | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1947
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1947 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. | Clowney | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1948
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM. HB1948 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE O…”
|
TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE OF NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS COMMITTED; AND TO … | Joey Carr | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1953
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL. HB1953 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE PHONE CALLS TO OFFSET THE … | Torres | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1978
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NCIDENT TO BE PLACED ON TEMPORARY LEAVE AND ATTEND THERAPY. HB1978 Gazaway TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP TO THE SEVENTEENTH D…”
|
TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP TO THE SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM. | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1980
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1980 Gazaway TO CREATE THE TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY FOR SUSTAINABLE…”
|
TO CREATE THE TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY FOR SUSTAINABLE LOGISTICS ACT (TESLA); AND TO ADD ELECTRIC … | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB277
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES. SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALIN…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING … | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB321
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRAT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB355
Act 1000
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CAL INFRASTRUCTURE". REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVE…”
|
TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. | J. Bryant | Notification that SB355 is now Act 1000 |
|
SB629
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB629 Caldwell TO ALLOW AN OFFICER OF A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION…”
|
TO ALLOW AN OFFICER OF A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION TO REPRESENT THE CORPORATION IN COURT … | Caldwell | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1871
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS…”
|
TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR … | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Welcome to our last meeting of the session unless something falls apart in the afternoon and then you'll hear from me, but uh we are at our last meeting. We have a couple of things we need to take up first. We're going to go to concurrent Senate amendments, so House Bill 1877, Richardson, if you'll go to the end of the table and present the amendment to House Bill 1877. Good morning, committee. Thank you, Madam Chair, Scott
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
0:36
Richardson, House District 13. Uh, the amendment for this, it comes back to us from the Senate is in relation to how the bill applies for testers attempting to ensure that their AI software does not create uh the types of images that are forbidden in this and giving them some leeway to be able to do that testing without breaking the law. Pretty simple amendment, but it was agreed upon on the other end, and so with that, I'm happy
Speaker 6
1:07
to try to answer questions. Members, are there any questions?
Seeing the questions, you recognized clothes for the amendment. I'm closed for the amendment.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:15
Good bill. Appreciate a good vote and I make a motion we can current and send an amendment.
Speaker 6
1:20
Members, we have a motion to concur and send an amendment on the table.
Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. And he opposed say no. The ayes have it, that we have concurred. Next we have concurrence and
Senate amendment to House Bill 1865, Representative Volt, you're recognized We have 2 amendments to this one, so
members we're going to get those passed out. Let's get those passed out first, representative, and then we'll come back to you. You
Can I have one, please? Oh, thank you. Mm All right, Representative Von, you're recognized to identify yourself and present the Senate amendments. Thank you, Madam Chair. DM District 87, Amendment 1 is adding some uh co-sponsors.
Members, you've heard explanation of amendment number one. We have a motion to concur in the Senate Amendment number 1, any anyone, um, any discussion, excuse me, any discussion, seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? The eyes have it. Amendment number 1 has been adopted. Let's move to Amendment number 2. Amendment number 2
is we were trying to make sure that we didn't mess up anything in theE Act. So we had
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
3:08
to go back and fix a few things to make sure that they didn't um
Speaker 21
3:15
conflict with each other. members you've heard an
explanation of amendment number 2. We have a motion to concur on Amendment number 2, is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. And opposed say no. The ayes have it. We have concurred amendment number 1 and 2. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you committee. Members, let's
go to our regular agenda. We're going to take up
Senate Bill 441. Senator Hester, you recognized to go to the end of
the table and present Senate Bill 441. Just both of you identify
yourself with the record and you'll be recognized. Bart Hester, state senator, District 33, Representative
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
4:05
Aaron Pelton District 45, up in Johnson County. You're recognized members. I'm pleased to be able to present to you the lobbyist employment bill
of 2025. I'm sure you've heard plenty about this bill. Uh, and look, it's, it's far simpler than I think uh maybe you've been pitched to on either side. I think regardless of your opinion of lawsuit reform or not, I don't think anybody in this room is for junk lawsuits, lawsuits that affect, uh, that tie up our court systems, lawsuits that affect our local businesses and ultimately affect our constituents. You know, my pitch to you today
is, um, If this bill does not proceed, does not pass. How are your constituents better, any of your constituents. If this bill passes, I can assure you that many of your constituents will be better off. We're dealing with the companies that are coming into Arkansas, the one in particular that's, that, that really is the impetus for this bill that has sued Blue Cross and Blue Shield many times, sued Walmart, sued Simon Bank, Simmons Bank, all in the
last few years. They'll continue to come into the state of Arkansas and find what I believe are these junk lawsuits where, and this is the key to the whole thing. No one was harmed. No one was harmed. The plaintiff on this bill admits they never had a good Rx card, and they were never harmed. Let me show you, so this bill, like it does a lot more than just this, but the impetus for this bill is current ongoing legislation or ongoing litigation. And I think uh that's one of the
attributes to this bill that we stand up and address something that's currently going on that is not OK. I've got a good RX car. Y'all may not allow me to show it, but on the front, it says this is not insurance. The whole basis of this is that's not bold enough. That's why we're here today. An out of state. Law firm has came in, partnered with a local one to sue businesses that are helping people in Arkansas get prescription drugs cheaper. Because it wasn't bold enough on the front.
No one was harmed. What this what this legislation does. On page Like 3 Lines 7 and 8. It just, it adds, if injured. Right, if no one is harmed, How do we, how do we continue to let people come to the state of Arkansas, sue our businesses, tie up our courtrooms, cost us money when no one was harmed. That's why I named this bill the
Junk Lawsuit Bill. Um, we can go through a lot of other things. You, and as uh one of the biggest questions that I believe is an attribute to this bill is it is retroactive. It's retroactive intentionally and for a purpose. And again, I will say this, regardless of how you feel about lawsuit reform. No one in this room, I believe, is for these type of junk lawsuits that aren't benefiting any of our constituents. I'm going to open it up for questions and if, if you expect me to, uh,
Battle legal wits with representative uh Springer or Collins, I will surrender right now. Uh, but if, if you agree with me that we should be able to protect our constituents from this that's happening that that benefits no one. Like if there are, if there are legal payouts, who do they go to? No one was harmed. I'll tell you they go to law firms. I call them tall building lawyers, not in Arkansas. Or who's going to get, get any money that's going to harm your constituents that
are using things like this Good Rx. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Members, are there any questions? Representative Springer, you recognized for a question? Good. Thank
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
8:05
you, Madam Chair, and good morning. I'm happy that you suggested that I would be asking you a question. So you put me on the spot. So I will ask you a question. Uh, so you've admitted that that was going to be one of the questions I was going to ask. Well, you admitted that there is pending litigation on regarding this in the litigation is still pending, and there are several
lawsuits that have been filed and they're still in court. They have not been dismissed by the court. When were
Speaker 31
8:34
they, when was it dismissed? No, they were not dismissed. Representing
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
8:38
Clowney, you recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn't really have a question, Senator Hester, until you didn't name drop me as a lawyer. So here we are, um, no, I, um, I'm trying to understand the change that you're making, and this may be, um, I don't know if people are going to speak for or against, so maybe this is a better question for a lawyer, but question in case you might be
able to answer it. Um, if these folks aren't injured currently, how do they get standing in court when they bring a suit like this? Do you know the answer to that?
Speaker 34
9:04
I do not know the answer to that, but, but clearly there is a court allowing them
Chair
Unverified
9:13
standing. OK, thank you. Members, any other questions? Repent Richardson, you recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
9:18
Thanks for being here and bringing this. I know it can't be easy bringing a contentious piece of legislation like this. My first question is, is associated with you brought up
the um the uh not insurance label that's on the card now. When did they start adding that to the card. I do not know. OK. Uh, but the lawsuit is not about it being on the card. It's about it's not bold enough. Is that correct? That is correct. Interesting. OK. Thank you. members, any other Representative
Beatty, you're recognized for a question. Just one question. I, I
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
9:55
was listening on my way over this morning because it's been noted
I always run a little late for judiciary we would expect nothing less at the end of the session that you would be on time, so go
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
10:08
for it, I'm accustomed to those 10 a.m. meetings, 8 o'clock is a little earlier for me. Um, in, in your opening,
uh, you said that that The person filing the suit. Um, had no, there, there was no Arkansan on, on the sea. Is that correct? No, there, there is, there is a uh an Arkansas law firm that filed the
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
10:31
suit on behalf of, not, not an individual, but, uh, but a group, but a group. OK. Mhm Representing Collins, you recognized for
Chair
Unverified
10:38
a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I understand what
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
10:41
you're saying about law firms kind of coming in to the state and swarming the legal system and all that. Do you have any concern that if we pass this, what we're going to have next session is. People that are in litigation coming back and trying to retroactively change other laws because they're going to realize, well, this is a way I can get out of my, uh, potential
liability. I just need to go and find a, a sympathetic ear at the legislature, and this will be my my get out of liability
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
11:09
card. Um, I think, I think it's a great question. I think the answer is yes, but not because of this bill, but because I, I've dealt with it for 6 consecutive sessions. Um, every session we come down here and someone's seeking to um pass pass law that affects current litigation. And then this, well, not this specific committee, but over the last couple of committees, they, we both the House and Senate Judiciary committees and
chambers have agreed to pass retroactive legislation. You recognize for
Chair
Unverified
11:36
our follow-up and that actually was right
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
11:39
on my follow-up. I just don't know. I don't recall how often have we done this where we have gone back and retroactively passed a law that affects ongoing litigation to, I guess it would effectively moot the claims that they're making in this case. Is that something we do on a regular basis? We do not do it on a regular basis.
Speaker 31
11:58
We do do it. Thanks. Members, any other questions?
Seeing no further questions, we do have some individuals who have signed up to
speak. To speak against the bill we have. Bart Calhoun, Mr. Calhoun, if you'll go to the end of
the table. Identify yourself, you're recognized to make your statement. Hi. Good morning,
Speaker 46
12:29
madam, Madam Chair. Um, Bart Calhoun, Toney with McDaniel Wolf Law firm here
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
12:32
in Little Rock, uh, formerly in a past life, consumer protection
attorney with the Attorney General's office. I'm here today on behalf of the Burt and Annette Mullins Foundation. You might have heard that name before, that is the plaintiff in the lawsuit. I want to tell you a little bit about the foundation. First, it was set up by Burt and Annette Mullins before they passed. Um, they passed a year or two ago. If you want some more information on them, you can go find. Mr. Bart's obituary, passed away at the ripe age of 95 and uh lived a heck of a life in Pope County, um, banking and, and in the military for over 20 years,
highly involved in philanthropy and business development. A lot of you've probably heard of Nuclear One. some say nuclear oil probably wouldn't have been done without, uh, Mr. Mullins. Um, so when they, before they passed, they set up a foundation that would go to uh it it's, it's very broad in its objectives. to protect Arkansas consumers across the board, but also, um, in pursuit of uh advancing Pope County, um, economically, but also protecting those that are
the least vulnerable. So I want to start out by saying the foundation is the plaintiff, and this is the only lawsuit it's filed. I'll go and be forward with you on the front end. I'm not involved in the lawsuit. Um, if I was, I'm happy to tell you I'm not a high-rise lawyer. We only have two stories in my building, and I could jump off and probably only break an ankle. So, This bill is about, this statute is about consumer protection, and I appreciate Senator Hester's candor, um, but this is
not a simple, this is not a simple act. This is not a simple bill. This is not something that's simply going to address the standing issue, as it's called. Now the court has already ruled in this case that there's standing based on the statute, because the foundation has standing. Um, to file suit. Um, these are kind of like private AG bills. So when I was at the Consumer Protection office, and I can't speak on behalf of the AG's office now. I have no idea how many people they employ. But
when I was there, um, you only have so many attorneys, you only have so many investigators, so much support staff. You can't prosecute every single violation of Arkansas consumer protection statute. We rely heavily on individuals being able to do that. And at a this bill is undercutting a consumer protection statute. It's no different than if we were going in right now and cutting down the DTPA. This is not just about standing. If all this bill did was say, OK, you
have to be injured and we're gonna, we're gonna do some fixes on the standing issue, then I think we could probably have a pretty good conversation about that. And what purposes that may serve, but I want to go down through with you some things this bill does that has nothing to do with standing, and Basically at the end, what my conclusion's going to be is that if you pass the bill it is today, you might as well just go ahead and take out the entire act because it will serve zero purpose anymore. So first I want to go down to page 1 lines 29 through 30. This
is the exchange for fees language. This basically makes the statute only applicable to companies that accept fees. Why is this important? Because the proponents of this bill that's probably been talking to y'all, Good Rx, does most of their, um, issues, most of their cards for, for no fee. So, well, that's great. They're providing a great service to consumers. Why does that matter? Well, the thing is, is because they're not doing all the goodness of their heart. They're not a nonprofit. They're getting money from somewhere, whether it's PBMs or somewhere in the pharmaceutical chain, just
because they're not getting paid by the consumer doesn't mean the consumer doesn't need the disclosures that are set forth in subsections 1 through 7 in the statute or whatever it is, including the fact that people need to know about that there, these cards are insurance. Well, you may look at these cards and go, well, I think it's obvious. They're not insurance. But we're talking about protecting the, the most vulnerable consumers in the state of Arkansas. We're not talking about people. Who are sitting on a judiciary house committee that that see this kind of legislation comes through on a daily basis.
The most The worst part of the bill, I think, is if you look at pages 3 to 4 on the limits for relief, um, it negates the penalty provision, but I think far more detrimental is the fact that it gets rid of the availability for attorneys' fees. Now you say, well, aren't we going, aren't we talking about high-rise lawyers now and the attorneys' fees they get. Now, we're talking about the reimbursement for the hours worked. Um, so let's say, let me start out with this. There's a misconception among a lot of
people that if you're successful in litigation, you automatically get attorneys' fees. In Arkansas, we go by what's called the American rule. And that's what most states go by. And that's, it says this, if there's not a statute or other authority that says you get attorneys' fees, then each party pays their own attorney's fees. So let's say that John Doe gets one of these cards. He thinks it's insurance. He goes to the emergency room. Comes out of the emergency room with the $10,000 bill. He
realizes nothing was paid. He's $10,000 in debt, which, of course, you all know where that goes. And he's damaged. It's $10,000 in debt. There's no, there's no attorney's fee provision in this bill. How does he bring a suit on this? No one, he can't afford to pay for it by the hour. There's no reimbursement for attorneys' fees on the back end. No one's going to take that on a contingency basis. It essentially kills this statute. There is no way anyone that's going to lose, uh, and you know,
$10,000 is a minimal amount of money for a lawsuit, but it
Speaker 49
18:20
is extremely high amount of money for the most vulnerable consumers in Arkansas. Third, if you go down
Speaker 51
18:27
to page 3 lines 24 to 34. There's this 30 day written notice and cure period. And I think about
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
18:34
any company would love one of these, because basically what it says in here is, as long as you cure as long as good RX or whoever the prescription card company is cures that, then they're good.
Before a consumer could even bring an action. Let's say you go into the emergency room, you're down that $10,000 you're feeling hurt. Now you're wondering what to do. Well, first step you've got to do is you got to send them a letter. Where do you send them a letter to? This is getting difficult because we're talking about the most vulnerable population. So you send them a letter and they get 30 days and 30 days they're gonna write back going, no, we didn't do anything wrong. So then it's up to the court, for one, when you go, if you could even find a lawyer to take your case.
First, it's up to the court. Well, we've got to decide whether there was a cure in the first place before they can even go, go about reaching the merits of the case. Now, I think this 30 day provision is likely, would likely be challenged in court. Um, I don't Have a crystal ball to tell you how a judge would rule, but in the past procedural issues like this are, are, are generally left to the courts and by the rules of civil procedure in the Arkansas Supreme Court, and it's kind of a separation of powers issue. Um, and then lastly, of course, is the retroactivity.
Um, on page 41 of two things will happen with this. There's case law on whether retroactivity clause is or whether it's lawful or not, um, there's case law that'll say that it's not. Um, I'm sure people like Good Rx will come into this lawsuit that's in. They say that it is good. One of two things will happen. This bill will either affect pending litigation or it'll be ruled unconstitutional. And we won't know the answer to that, probably. The next general session, it'll probably be pending before the
Arkansas Court of Appeals, and we still won't know then. So I close by saying this. This is, I'm here on behalf of a foundation that is Arkansas-based, Arkansans that spent their life Um, trying to help consumers and help the economic development of the state of Arkansas. This is not a windfall for attorneys or out of state attorneys. This is very specific statute on, you know, this isn't like it's curing all junk lawsuits in the state of Arkansas. This is a very
specific statute, very specific harm that it's aimed to prevent and If the lawsuit is successful, then money goes back to the targeted population. It's not like the attorneys get 100% of the money that comes in and this foundation has just been set up to help out a state attorneys. This is the foundation that's set up to help Arkansas consumers, and if this bill is passed, um, Like I said before, there would be almost, there would be no purpose for the statute anyway.
Mr. Calhoun, you're willing to take questions? Of course, Madam Chair. Gonzalez, you're recognized for a question. Thing about. I'm, I'm really undecided
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
21:42
on this. I hadn't decided if there is a, if there is a right side on this, but Can you tell me exactly how Arkansas consumers were harmed and how will they benefit from this lawsuit? How the consumers will benefit. So if you look at people who
were harmed specifically, I want to know exactly how they were harmed and exactly how those people that were harmed or will, will benefit from this. Sure. Well, it's two parts. One, and And I
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
22:13
will go and be candid that I'm not involved in the litigation. I'm not a lawyer on the litigation. Um, I don't represent the the foundation in the litigation. Um, so the ins and outs of it. So I, I apologize on the front end for that. Um, but two parts on that. One is that
These, these lawsuits act as deterrents, uh, to companies and to enforce the law. Like I said earlier, it's kind of like a private AG action, what's called private AG action. They have them throughout the country. There's some federal actions like this. And they're meant to kind of fill in the gaps where the regulators don't have the time or the resources to pursue every single violation of Arkansas law. So I'll say that on one end. Now to the foundation, whatever money it gets will be set aside to go towards the targeted population. And that means any consumers that come,
come forward that have been harmed by a good RX card, whether that's the insurance, uh, you know, whether that's the emergency room, hypothetical I was speaking of, or another one where they've just gone to their doctor's office or things like that. But the money will be used is from a foundation. It's not going into, you know, into
Speaker 58
23:19
the pockets of people that haven't been injured. You need a follow up? Yes, I'm not sure that
Speaker 35
23:26
either of those questions was, was really answered, um.
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
23:33
So the foundation, you're saying that people who were harmed could apply to the foundation to pay their medical bills. I honestly
Speaker 49
23:40
don't know the procedure on that because I'm not involved in the litigation. OK. And back to the first
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
23:46
question about these people who I think the court would hold the funds. Um, I don't think like the, the foundation
Speaker 49
23:52
would just receive this windfall of money and people would be applying to a foundation. No. OK. All right. Thank you. Representing Hudson, you're recognized for your question.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
24:07
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Calhoun. As you read this, this bill, do you see, I'm concerned about this idea that, um, find the language. About a cure being possible,
do you, in your read of this bill, do you see any language that that explains or defines how
we determine a cure is possible and who makes that determination.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
24:39
And now that's one of the issues with the bill, um, is that it's very vague in that. So, you know, I think it would ultimately have to be up to a court to determine what is possible or not, and then the court's going to have to interpret the statute, and then what's the meaning if possible. Uh, you know, I think the, uh, what I would ask the committee to do is look at all other consumer protection statutes in the state of Arkansas, whether it's telemarketing, home solicitations, um, you know, used car by Dealer Act, anything like that. Um, you don't see
this kind of language, um, in that, this 30 day cure period, um, at least not with the, the, the kind of broad vague language that's in here, because this is difficult to interpret. It's going to be difficult for a court to handle, and it's ultimately going to um it's gonna be a deterrent
Speaker 49
25:26
for anybody to suit, and when the suit's filed, it's going to be a reason to drag
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
25:31
the suit on. You're recognized. Thank you. So I think that we kind of both agree that in this case, the parties are
going to end up in court early anyway, uh, maybe
even earlier than they would, um, if they were just simply trying to pursue settlement between the two of them because you're going to have to have a court determine what the word possible means and whether the cure is possible. I wanted to ask you too though. I'm kind of along that same lines. If you would agree with me that It's very unlikely that a large corporation, especially one that operates in multiple states is going to be advised by their attorney to provide an express
written statement of fault, um, especially in the event of a claim that could be made against them in other states and where that express written statement of fault could be used against them in other states as evidence to reflect that they have fault in those states. So would you agree with me that that what we're doing here also chills the ability both, um, because of the fact that we're, you know, gonna have to go to court about what the possibilities are and because of some of the procedural hamstrings that we're putting on
both plaintiffs but also the defendant or potential defendant that that settlement discussions are likely to be chilled in these cases because the parties are not going to see that they can have these discussions without having to assign some sort of fault and the defendant, as I read this, has no um Assurances short of acknowledging faults that the plaintiff isn't going to bring them into court anyway. Yeah, and if you look at that, and
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
27:07
I represent people on both sides, plaintiff and defense, and I've
represented plenty of people that have had consumer protection actions filed against them. And so if I'm representing a company like GoodRX and someone sends me this 30-day, um, cure thing. I'm not advising them to send anything in writing, because one thing if you do, the consumer could then turn over. give it to the Attorney General and go, look, here's the admission of liability right here, because we're not talking about in a court settlement for, you know, a lot of times in court, you'll go to mediation or you'll have settlement
discussions and that's protected from disclosure in court, that wouldn't be applicable here. So there's no time that I would ever advise a client, OK, let's write a letter saying that we admit fault and that we're going to cure it. It's, it's, it's. There's not
Speaker 58
27:56
going to be any time where that's really cured in those 30 days. If there's a significant
violation. Representing Betty, you're recognized for a
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
28:05
question. I guess my question, you mentioned several times the foundation. And I'm, I'm South Arkansas guy, so I, I'm somewhat familiar with the names that that were
mentioned there, uh, but what type of work, what type of, of donations, contributions, uh, have they made in the last few years and primarily where are those donations and contributions made, are they all river valley? Uh, I think for the most part, River Valley and, uh, you know, philanthropic
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
28:31
work up there. It's a very uh new foundation. It wasn't created long, I don't believe before they passed away, and I think Mr. Burke passed away in 2023. So it's, it's very early
Speaker 58
28:41
on and the, the foundation's life. So can you tell me a
little bit more about the work that they do and and where their funds go. I'm not sure where their funds. I, I couldn't, I'd have to look at the list and go back to their donor list and and where they, I'm not asking where
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
28:57
their funds come from because what I understood sort of from some of the testimony I've I've heard and heard you mention is that these were, these were funds that That they put into the foundation to start the foundation. So I'm not so much concerned about where the other contributions come from. I want
to know where the resources, where they spend their resources, what type of organizations, what type of, of, of, you know, of donations
they make in the community and where that money's. Where that money's going to be focused. So in general, I think it's mostly
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
29:28
targeted in the river valley, but I don't know specifics because I'm not, I'm not the manager of the, the foundation. I just know generally they're there, I know that this
Speaker 54
29:36
is the only lawsuit that that's they've been filed. OK. They say Richardson, you're recognized for a question.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
29:47
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so, You've said many times that you don't, you're not involved in the litigation for that lawsuit. And now you're, you're not the familiar with the foundation. Itself as far as the specifics as far as where they spend their money and how they're what they're investing in, and I'm just curious. You're representing just the
Law firm in this case or who are you representing and
Speaker 53
30:20
speaking to the committee, right? So the foundation hired me because they have an interest in
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
30:26
consumer protection in general in Arkansas. They hired me because to speak against the bill. So that's why I'm here is to Speak against the legislation. But you recognize for a
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
30:37
follow up. Thank you. So you don't represent the only people that you're representing is just the foundation on behalf of them to speak against this bill only, but you're not familiar with
what the foundation really does. I am
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
30:50
familiar with that the foundation does feel, you know, philanthropic work in the
Speaker 54
30:54
river valley, uh, and supporting that, but I don't know the specifics of
Speaker 77
30:59
that. OK, thank you. Representing Springer, you're
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
31:04
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, hi. I'm representative, I'm not sure if you're familiar, but we recently the legislature recently passed a bill, House Bill 1832 that related to
constitutional issues, and it basically stated That um any type of lawsuit, facial constitutional issues be filed in the county where the event occurred and I noticed this based upon that, I see in this particular in it involves consumers all over the state. So I see in this particular bill, uh, that on page. 3 Starting that lines.
13 through 25, it talks about for an individual. could possibly file their lawsuit and they, they have several options that House Bill 1832 limited the filing of a constitutional issue basically in um wherever the uh action took place. So do you have any opinion about uh whether or not um This particular bill should be similar to the one that was recently passed House Bill 1832 where, where it said that the
lawsuit needed to be filed in the county where it was. Uh, the violation took place or whether or not you have an opinion about this particular bill allowing. I'm, I'm just, this is just hypothetical. I just wanted to know your opinion about that, and I haven't
read the bill you're referring to specifically, but assuming that it's, uh, you know, saying that constitutional action shall be filed in the court where the harm is, and, and I guess that's to avoid Pulaski County, um, you know, I guess it would depend on whether you're bringing an
action under this, whether if it was a constitutional action, um, And then I guess it would probably depend on whether you were talking about any constitutional issues within the case, separation of powers, um, whatnot. So I think it would probably depend on the, um, the action itself and the facts of the case where it would have to be filed, um, something I can't depend on, uh, conclusively, but that, that could be an issue on, on whether this would conflict
Speaker 49
33:14
with that statute. You're right. I just wanted to get your
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
33:21
opinion about that because it kind of concerned me that this particular bill allows that kind of situation to be handled all over, whereas the other one limited to the place where, and I know I see some people may not think that this is pertinent, but I think that it is. To me, I see a connection between the two. So thank you very much for your comment. Representing Shepherd, you're recognized
for a question. Thank you, Representative Springer
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
33:46
for the shout out on House Bill 1832, uh,
another of Senator Hester's bills too. So I have really mixed feelings on this bill on one hand, Uh, you know, I think in some ways it's, it's a bit broad. I'm a little concerned about, about the retroactivity. On the other hand, From what's been described about this litigation and as I look at the statute that was originally passed, I'm not sure that the statute as originally passed was I've got some issues with it as well, but I'm, I'm really
interested because ultimately, um, you know, I think so much of this comes down, at least in my mind, to what's the impact on this litigation. And so I would like to know, Senator Hester said that this litigation basically centers around um what's on the card and how, whether a statement is bolded or not, but can you tell me specifically what is the claim that's made. What is the alleged damage that has occurred and has good RX corrected that potential, whatever potential harm it is, but there's still
litigation pending. And um perhaps Sen Hester representative Pilgri can answer those when they come back to close, but, um, you know, ultimately to me that's where uh that seems to be where so much of the concern is, because generally I think uh we have been concerned about retroactivity. I, I don't know that I can sit here and say it's never been done, um, and certainly if it's within the purview of the of the legislature, then that's within our purview. Uh, I'm sure the court system will, will weigh in if that's the, if that's the
choice of uh of the litigants, but I'd like to know what are the claims? What is the alleged harm or damage, and then what is the status has has there been any resolution of that or his good RX taken any action in response. Um, thank you, Mr.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
35:39
Speaker. Um, first, I'll say again, I'm not an attorney in the litigation. At
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
35:44
the time I testified at the Senate Judiciary, I hadn't even read the complaint. Um, I think I did a cursory review. So I'm not sure that I can even answer your question. Um, I
I think it's uh from my understanding, it's supposed to be more, more than just about the, the insurance uh provision is not in bold font, but I couldn't tell you the specifics of the lawsuit, um, nor do I represent them in the lawsuit. So I don't want to get outside. I would encourage anybody that, that you can go on court connect, you can look at the complaint and see what the allegations are, um, and take it straight from the horse's mouth instead of hearing it from me down at the other end of the table. That's where you're going to get the, um, the straightest facts. Um, also say that I, I, the foundation,
talking about injury, I, I admitted that they have, um, I forgot that they did make a donation of $1 million to Arkansas Tech University. Um, so that I said River Valley, Arkansas, Texas in the River Valley. I'd forgotten about that donation. saying Unger, you're recognized
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
36:48
I know you don't like this, but I'm out of your background with the Attorney General's office. Is there any junk lawsuit prevention bill that you could support.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
37:00
Yeah that's Of course, yeah, there's, there's, there's plenty to do out there. I don't know, um, specifically, you know, here's the thing, you look at this bill, and I'm not saying that my client would support the bill if it was just about standing, but this bill isn't just about standing. That's the problem here. We get past standing. We start talking about gunning it to make it only apply to when a company receives funds from the consumer. We talk about taking away attorneys' fees. We talk about this cure period. This
isn't about fixing junk lawsuits. If it was just about standing, then we could have that conversation. It'd be a serious conversation, but I don't think we get to that conversation here because There's so many problems with the bill as written right now. If you, if you vote on this, if you vote A on this because you're getting rid of junk lawsuits, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ma'am. Thank you,
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
37:58
ma'am. Uh, is Good Rx involved in any lawsuits in any
other state such as this. Good Rx? Yes sir. I'm, I'm not, I'm not sure. Thank you, ma'am.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
38:13
Representative Beatty, you recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to follow back up so that I understand
the relationship that you have and, and the reason you're here today. We've kind of asked about the foundation. You had a little bit of information about it, but not a lot of information. Um So do you represent the foundation or do you represent maybe a principal or a member
that's involved in the foundation, um, because I'm having a little, a little trouble understanding usually that's some type of relationship there where you understand who you're representing and your capacity here today, you're just here paid to come and speak against this bill. It is, is that the, you know, that relationship? Yes, I don't represent them in any other context. I don't
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
38:59
represent them in in helping set up the, the foundation or the daily runnings
of the foundation. They reached out to me because I was in the consumer protection, um, so I'm often up here at the legislature and I I was in consumer protection worked at the Attorney General's office, asked me to look at the bill, asked me to give them my thoughts on the bill because they thought that it was watering down consumer protection laws, and they hired me
Speaker 58
39:22
to speak against it. Well then, you know, I could have appreciated that,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
39:27
but you clouded the water when you went into talking about the foundation with me because it, it made it sound more like you, you had a relationship and you
were the attorney for the foundation and um so. I'll, I'll give you a little credit on that side. I that that relationship was not clear of of what party you represented, what role you were playing, so you were here as the expert in consumer laws and consumer protection to speak against the bill. Yes, and, and anytime I represent a client, I want to know a little bit
Speaker 85
39:58
about them, but I might not delve into every bit of their history. And you, you succeeded in that.
represent you bank should recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
40:10
Chair. I have a question for the chair. Is there, is there anyone else signed up to speak against this bill. There's no one else signed up. OK, well, now I have a question for the witness. You recognized for your question, sir. I appreciate you coming and expressing your opinion, but you don't seem to have enough facts to be able to get share with us so that, you know, we, you Speaker Shepherd asked some some
I think some some questions that were very pertinent and you know if we had those answers, maybe the committee might make a different decision, but you certainly don't seem to have any of that information regarding. Uh, what was that? So I, I I'm wondering what you're doing here. Wouldn't you agree? Would you agree? No, I wouldn't, Representative. I, I, I told you why I
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
40:59
was here. I'm here to speak against the bill because it's bad consumer protection. Uh, maybe this will make it more
simple. If, even if we could agree today hypothetically that that litigation that's being uh in Pope County right now is bad. Say, I know nothing about it. Let's say, you know, the naysayers are correct. That litigation is terrible. It still doesn't justify everything this bill does. I'm looking at this from a consumer protection standpoint, not from a lawsuit in Pope County standpoint. I'm looking at this from a standpoint of people going to an emergency room with a card. I'm looking at this from a cure period standpoint. I'm looking at this at a futuristic
standpoint of a chilling effect this is going to have on consumer litigation in the future because they're not going to be able to get attorneys' fees when they go try to file an action. As I said before, I'm here today to testify that this bill would make the statute essentially useless. I'm not here to justify litigation that's Going on in another county. I don't know if I can make that any more clear. Representing
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
41:59
Moore, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Mr. Calhoun, I appreciate you coming down here, but it seems to me that
We the judiciary Committee are being asked to rule in place of the court on this particular subject. And Madam Chair, I know there's no one else to speak for or against this bill, but I'm just curious as to If there's someone that represents the plaintiffs or the defendant in the room in a legal capacity, if they're here and could come to the table because we are being asked to essentially decide cast judgment on this lawsuit. And we must take the facts as they are given to us, and I find that a little difficult at this
moment. Let me, let me inquire. So anyone in the room that wishes to come to the table to speak in favor of
the bill. I don't think there are any attorneys here in the room that represents either side. Thank you.
Representative, are you through with your question, Rep Seymour. Representing Brown, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Calhoun,
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
43:03
um, are you, is there anything else in the code, and I apologize this question I asked before I got here. Are there any other examples in our code where
there's a provision similar to this where a plaintiff has to give 30 days' notice so they can bring a
Speaker 85
43:15
lawsuit or a cure period or anything of that nature. I'm not sure of any off the
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
43:21
top of my head. Specifically, if there are any cure periods, I don't think they are, um, and I'm trying to rack my brain through the consumer protection statutes and try to think if there was
Speaker 49
43:29
something in the home solicitation front, but there's nothing exactly like these. Representing Collins recognized for a question. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
43:35
I, I guess this question is partly addressed to
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
43:42
the committee. I mean this, um this is a witness he's here to speak about the bill. He did speak about the bill. He's not supposed to have all answers about the litigation or, or getting into the details of who he is and what he represents. I, I just think is not ermae and he's not really being expected, I don't think, to, to represent the party in the lawsuit because that lawsuit's not before us. The bill's before for us. So, um, I guess I would just ask that.
I mean, would you agree that we could just take your testimony for what it is on the bill before us and not try to expect it to be more than that. Absolutely.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
44:23
This is about the legislation. This is about the future impact on Arkansas consumers. This is not about a fight between alleged high-rise lawyers and a multi whatever dollar company, Good Rx from another state. This is about perspective consumer protection. Representing Shepherd, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I guess I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
44:43
somewhat disagree with that because if there wasn't a lawsuit, then You probably wouldn't be here testifying. They probably wouldn't have sent somebody over to To argue this or to to give a testimony, but again I come back to this question of Of you've raised the concerns of consumer protection, and I've asked about the damage of the potential damage, potential harm to consumers. I've looked at the complaint in the lawsuit. Looks like it centers largely around.
The uh the card or the, the information that's provided, uh, when somebody, uh, I guess joins this, but you've brought up several times now about protecting consumers when they go to emergency rooms. It's so help me understand what are you alluding to at that point about how does this protect consumers? How does the current statute protect
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
45:37
consumers. If there's not a disclosure in there that it's not insurance. A consumer. May and has or could rely on the
card as insurance or think that it was insurance or do something that it didn't. You go to the emergency room, um, you get treatment, you come out with a With the, you know, with the bill of, you know, however many hundreds or thousands or
Speaker 54
46:00
whatever it costs. Um, but with no means to pay it, and that's the
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
46:06
I think that's the main example, so. So you're, what's your, what you're saying if I'm understanding this correct is that individuals may believe by receiving a card, uh, this GoodRx card that somehow they have.
Health insurance or some uh type of prescription drug coverage. That's correct. That's the
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
46:25
disclosures are meant to just to be, to provide them a disclosure on the card saying this is not insurance. OK, thank you. Representative Richardson, you're
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
46:38
Chair. So, so you just testified that Someone may or has relied on this as insurance. Are you aware of any that have relied on this card and presented it as insurance.
Speaker 37
46:52
I'm not a, I, I do, I'm not represent anyone personally, but I am aware of them personally. You are aware of people that have used this, tried to use this as insurance, and were denied. OK, thank you. Members, any other questions?
Seeing no further questions from the committee. Thank you, Mr. Calhoun, for being here today. We have no one else who you you excuse, thank you for being here. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Hester,
you're recognized to come to the end of the table and close for your bill. First.
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
47:26
I'll just start off real quick. Um, You know, I appreciate the time and the questions today as someone who represents the river valley and part of Pope County, I, I can tell you, um, this foundation has been around for a while. It's been around since 2011. It's not new, but it's been pretty inactive since their founders passed, um, and from my understanding, it has not done much in the last last few years, and it's just merely passed through and so I just thought that context was important for the committee to know that, um, and just someone who, who works
in the healthcare field, I think this is a good bill, got or accident a lot for, uh, for those people and for the community and help people save on drug costs and uh if there was a constituent of mine in Pope County who was harmed by GoodRX, I would want them to pay. Uh, but they weren't, and that's the reality. And so, um, and I think that's why uh this is a good piece of legislation and all that part close with his comments. Thank you, members for your, for your time again, and I
think that, you know, there was testimony that there are people that were harmed. I think if there was a person that was harmed, they would be the
plaintiff instead of a foundation. Um, you know, I, I think you guys are smart enough to know that if there's, you know, I heard in testimony a few minutes ago that there's no legal fees or at least to be awarded here if, if that was if that was the case, every lawyer in every lobbyist in the room wouldn't be hired right now. Right, uh, they wouldn't, a lawyer wouldn't have hired a lawyer to hire a lawyer to come testify, right? There are significant fees that someone is going to, to end up paying on this. Uh, again, I ask you, as
we, as, as you vote, if this bill passes, uh, think, think about what if it doesn't pass, are your constituents any better? If it does pass, are they better? I think the answer to that question is absolutely yes. The people you represent will be better protected if this bill passes. I ask for a good vote. Remember Senator Hester is closed for the bill. What are
the wishes of the committee? We have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor of the motion to pass, please say aye.
All opposed say no. The eyes have it, the bill is passed. We have a roll call.
Speaker 99
49:45
Represent a shepherd? Represent a Shepherd? No. Representative Eubanks, Representative Eubanks, I representative Tosh. Representative Tosh I representing Gonzalez. Representative Gonzalez. Represent the Gazaway. Represented Gazaway. Representative Crawford,
Representative Crawford, yes. Representative Clowney. Representative Clowney, yes. Representative Collins. Representative Collins? No. Representative Evans. Representative Evans. Representative McCullough. Representative McCullough? No. Represented Springer. Representative Springer? No. Representative Beatty represented Beatty, yes. Representative Hudson, Representative Hudson, no. Representative More represented
more, yes. Representative Brown. Representative Brown? No. Represented hunger. Representative Unger? No. Representative Richardson. Representative Richardson, yes. Representative Pierce. Representative Pierce, yes. Representative Underwood. Representative Underwood, yes.
Cha votes, yes. The bill is passed. Members, let's turn to Senate Bill 355. Representer Underwood, if you'll go to the end of the table, we'll take up Senate Bill 355.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
51:38
You're Underwood State Representative District 16. Um, this bill, we heard this bill last week, um, and the Senate Senator Bryant had come and presented it, and I thought I would give it another shot and uh get, hopefully give it another vote. So if you guys recall, this bill is regarding obstructing governmental operations, um, if you are served a subpoena and you knowingly do not appear to testify at court. This gives prosecutors another opportunity to pro execute those individuals who
choose not to show up for court. I do, I don't know if this was stressed last time, but I do think uh and maybe Senator Bryant mentioned it, he did work with public defenders. He worked with some language with them. I think they were neutral on the bill. I also think this kind of um It's good for all parties because it's good for the court because it's going to help them move their dockets along and it's also good for whether you're, you're the prosecution or whether you're the defendant. Um, it's good to get people in court to testify on your case. And so, um, I'm happy to try to take any, try to answer any questions.
Members, are there any questions? Any questions? Saying no questions. We have no one who
signed up to speak for or against the bill representative Underwood, you recognized clothes for Senate Bill 355. I'm closed. I'd make a motion to you pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say
aye. Any opposed? Say no. The eyes have it. The bill is passed. Thank you. Senate Bill 629. Anyone in the
room for that? Seeing no one here to move that one forward, we'll move that one to deferred House Bill 1980, we'll take that one and move it to deferred. Members that clears our calendar and before we, before everybody jumps up, uh, I do want to take a moment to publicly thank our people who have been with us all session and hung in there with us, Kobe and Emily, members, let's give them a round of applause.
On behalf of the committee, we really do appreciate all that you've done for us. You've kept us in line. You've held, you've stayed right there with us, and we appreciate the hard work. Members, we are at the end. Thank you so much for committee, for all that your work, for your diligent questions throughout the session and for moving things forward and stopping bad things. With that, we are adjourned.
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1877 S. Meeks CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE A COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE THAT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE IMAGE OF A
CHILD.
HB1865 Vaught TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD.
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1980 Gazaway TO CREATE THE TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY FOR SUSTAINABLE LOGISTICS ACT (TESLA); AND TO ADD ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS TO THE DEFINITION OF "CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE".
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS.
SB629 Caldwell TO ALLOW AN OFFICER OF A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION TO REPRESENT THE CORPORATION IN COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVICTION
PROCEEDINGS AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCEEDINGS.
SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND WARRANT.
Notice: Silence your cell phones. Keep your personal conversations to a minimum. Observe restrictions
HB1141 R. Scott Richardson TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.
HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT FROM GRANTING A UNIFORM PETITION WHEN A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST.
HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991.
HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION ENJOINING A PARTY FROM ENGAGING IN COURSE OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE PEACE EX PARTE.
HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS.
HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS OF AGE OR YOUNGER; TO PERMIT THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO ADMINISTER MEDROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE TREATMENT FOR CHEMICAL CASTRATION.
HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS.
HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS.
HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; AND TO ALLOW FOR INCOME TAX REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS.
SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND.
HB1823 Duffield TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND
NONCONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025; AND TO CLARIFY THE RIGHTS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL AFFECTED BY NONCONSENSUAL ACTIVITIES INVOLVING INTIMATE DIGITAL FORGERIES.
HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ENHANCEMENT BASED ON PRIOR ACTS.
HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO
REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR PROBATION OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE.
HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED ABUSE UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.
HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED AN ACT OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL DOMESTIC ABUSE WHEN THE VICTIM WOULD BE THE PAYOR OF ALIMONY.
HB1947 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.
HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE OF FORCE INCIDENT TO BE PLACED ON
TEMPORARY LEAVE AND ATTEND THERAPY.
HB1978 Gazaway TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP TO THE SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM.
HB1948 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE OF NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS COMMITTED; AND TO REPEAL THE ABILITY OF A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OR DEFENDANT TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL.
HB1953 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE PHONE CALLS TO OFFSET THE COSTS OF SECURITY NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH INMATE
COMMUNICATIONS.
HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES.
SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING OF A NEW UNIFORM PETITION TO SEAL A
MISDEMEANOR VIOLATION OF THEFT OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Apr 15, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Carol Dalby Chair
Unverified
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 6
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Speaker 21
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
Speaker 31
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 34
Chair
Unverified
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 46
Speaker 49
Speaker 51
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
Speaker 58
Speaker 35
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Speaker 54
Speaker 53
Speaker 77
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Speaker 85
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Speaker 37
Speaker 99
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified