[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6528375,"mediaKeyId","3407034-081f5d10d02fc50d32821fe6b9d5e047","parentId",3407034,"title","Judiciary committee advances tobacco, vape regulation bill after removing section on premium cigars","audioSeconds",2143,"startMs",871000,"endMs",3014000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3407034-081f5d10d02fc50d32821fe6b9d5e047&start=871&end=3014","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3407034-081f5d10d02fc50d32821fe6b9d5e047/thumbnail_871000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6528375/Connecticut/Judiciary-committee-advances-tobacco-vape-regulation-bill-after-removing-section-on-premium-cigars","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528375-f2593b0f721405c2789983a8a1387f23/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139174&Signature=QxL9nRlprD09ow3QsFJtUNgX9fkL7Sf8-j69zQXg2x7vTGMyjsucpcRWlVrVtm70lOk8wp2on7yH2MBRwn8gnrbokBdARUfPFb6IpBhWUjYZnqwuWvTysGqXK9Bh9CBwT4-j~KYKRnAtdnmt7WaH8Mb8gPdgqwOPvhcJzUNxhTgjP5NMf-vcgfzXC9OEpfS2VgNiOV3FKwRMH2BSIfLeAbtmTA4HYF~m5M6gZJ8k-DmgXhstivS0gKDTYfuKHHkcdQtTs~Ml6xCrnKglKmD2hHb0IVTXC-88yDjId3v8kdLXd~lISxZyCUG18-JAz5McPxw~MQ1STz3SLMCi8Gj9HQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Connecticut State Legislature - Judiciary","date","2025-05-20T00:00:00Z","article","The Judiciary Committee reconvened May 20 and moved Substitute for House Bill 7275 — an act concerning the regulation of cigarettes, tobacco products, electronic nicotine delivery systems, and vapor products — out of committee with amendments after extended debate over penalties and enforcement language.

The measure, which the chair said comes from the finance committee, includes both criminal and civil penalties and a civil fine of up to $10,000 imposed by the Commissioner of Revenue Services for specified violations. Chairman Staffstrom said the bill also contains “cut‑pa” provisions that his office views as problematic and that those provisions were expected to be removed on the House floor.

Why it matters: The bill would change how certain tobacco and vapor products are regulated in the state, including how penalties are imposed and who may bring enforcement actions. Committee members debated whether the bill’s civil‑penalty provisions and a proposed consumer‑protection cause of action (described in the hearing as a “cut of violation” under CutPA) fit the statutory requirements for ascertainable loss and whether the state or private parties would be able to bring suits.

Committee debate focused on scope and enforceability

Members questioned how the bill defines a discrete “violation” for purposes of the $10,000 civil penalty and related criminal sanctions. Senator Kissel asked whether the $10,000 amount is a fixed fine or a maximum; Chairman Staffstrom said the bill provides that the Commissioner of Revenue Services may impose a fine “up to $10,000.” Kissel asked, “the commissioner of revenue services currently … could say $1 or $10,000, and we don't really know what … factors the commissioner will consider,” and Staffstrom answered the bill does not specify those factors.

Representative Dubitsky raised concerns that the bill does not define what constitutes a single violation in contexts such as transporting product. Counsel and staff answered that, in their reading, a single truckload would likely be treated as one violation for a common carrier, but conceded that the statutory text does not plainly specify unitization. Dubitsky said that ambiguity, combined with civil fines and criminal penalties, creates enforcement and notice problems and proposed an oral amendment to strike lines 104–108 and 189–193. He asked for a roll call vote.

Roll calls and final committee action

A roll call on the oral amendment to strike lines 104–108 and 189–193 (Amendment A) failed, with the clerk reporting 11 voting yea, 21 voting nay and 9 absent. The chair prefaced his opposition to the amendment by saying he agreed with the amendment’s intent but asked members to oppose it for procedural reasons so the bill would proceed unchanged to the floor, where he expected the language to be removed.

Later, Representative Fishbein moved to strike section 2 of the bill (Amendment D). The clerk reported that amendment adopted by roll call, 31 voting yea, 4 voting nay and 6 absent. After adoption of that amendment the chair said the provisions remaining in the bill were sections 1, 3 and 4 — expanding the definition of “cigarette,” provisions involving improperly transporting e‑cigarettes, and a civil penalty section — and then the committee voted to report the substitute bill to the floor with amendments.

Several members asked practical questions about collateral consequences of enforcement. Representative Callahan asked whether the state had limits on the period products could be stored after seizure and whether storage fees could compound the civil exposure; the chair said he did not have an answer in committee. Members also pressed on the bill’s treatment of premium cigars (a definition in the bill referenced wholesale price not less than $30 per cigar) and on whether machine‑made, lower‑priced cigars could still be used by minors or for other purposes.

Representative Dubitsky warned that the combination of ambiguous units of violation, overlapping criminal and civil penalties, and the potential for large fines could create unintended consequences for carriers, retailers and processors. Chairman Staffstrom repeatedly said the bill’s consumer‑protection cause‑of‑action language is likely to be removed on the House floor but that he would support passage in committee to let that happen later in the process.

What the committee did

- Failed to adopt an oral amendment (Amendment A) to strike certain enforcement lines (roll call 11 yea, 21 nay, 9 absent).
- Adopted an amendment (Amendment D) to strike section 2 of the substitute (roll call 31 yea, 4 nay, 6 absent).
- Voted to report Substitute for House Bill 7275 to the floor with the adopted amendment(s).

Next steps: The committee reported the substitute bill to the floor; committee members said some problematic enforcement language was expected to be removed on the House floor. The bill’s future changes and any final statutory text will depend on subsequent floor amendments and conference actions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Judiciary Committee Meeting - May 20, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Judiciary Committee reconvened May 20 and moved Substitute for House Bill 7275 — an act concerning the regulation of cigarettes, tobacco products, electronic nicotine delivery systems, and vapor products — out of committee with amendments after extended debate over penalties and enforcement language.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Connecticut","taxId",15631,"location","Connecticut","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":46,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6528370,"Judiciary committee opens debate on limits to noncompete agreements; discussion ends with adjournment",564,3578000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3407034-081f5d10d02fc50d32821fe6b9d5e047&start=3014&end=3578","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3407034-081f5d10d02fc50d32821fe6b9d5e047/thumbnail_3014000.jpg","/articles/6528370/Connecticut/Judiciary-committee-opens-debate-on-limits-to-noncompete-agreements-discussion-ends-with-adjournment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528370-fb6b9f9da07b0b5cdcd1de8246cef6b5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771139174&Signature=ZiFwcqcCqs2J3Xa6YGS5denDsCOQQdtLtEBaGawE2C9tHlJjyjOfMfU-K3uWtN7Ss2zfSznHxUAMEioV~359gQ0nlOCkDZEsXu059QXozlNeksU6MuJDgyJe0nfrWxDNgqJynnQ2H~OwYRxZeQ4loZDahOA~x1NiPiE0rFgamlmdPwZmvdRO~songS-qtgVX8dvoN3A8N6d8-IkF1zMNMnadYJ-kdDp4mzi4fBYkJkdLH4DKEBLpywizbafwWJJWEFdXUgFogktRABZ3vxydv4NQLU62cIgZ5OkC61cyvaQxHF-cWig4ccg5v1lkSP9t43LJnM9nv2etrlj6~8vfGg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Judiciary Committee on May 20 took up Substitute for House Bill 7196, an act concerning limitations on the use of noncompete agreements. Committee members discussed the bill’s scope, notice provisions and the role of the attorney general in enforcement but the meeting was adjourned before the committee voted on the substitute.

Why it matters: The substitute would alter how noncompete covenants are enforced in the state, potentially changing employer obligations for notice to employees, permissible geographic scope of covenants and civil remedies including actions by the attorney general.

Key points from the morning’s discussion

Representative Fishman questioned how the bill’s geographic limitation is intended to function. Reading lines from the draft, he asked whether a covenant that restricts competition “in geographic areas in which a worker neither provided services nor had material presence or influence during the 2 years prior to such separation” is intended to be invalid. Committee members and counsel explained the clause is meant to limit enforceable covenants to areas where the worker had been active during the prior two years.

Members also examined the bill’s required notice language. Representative Fishman asked whether a notice provision in subsection D is a statement to the worker “expressly that not all covenants to compete are enforceable,” and staff confirmed that the provision is intended as a notice explaining the enforceability limits to employees.

Questions about enforcement and statute of limitations

Representative Fishman asked what statute of limitations would apply to enforcement actions brought under the bill, noting the bill’s text states the attorney general may not bring an action that would otherwise be barred under the applicable statute of limitations. Counsel said it could vary by cause of action — contract statutes of limitation can run six years in some circumstances and shorter periods in others — and that he did not have a single answer for every scenario.

Meeting adjournment

Before the committee could complete consideration or take a vote on the substitute bill, the chair said the Senate had gavels in and moved the committee to adjourn. The meeting ended with no recorded committee vote on Substitute for House Bill 7196.

Next steps: No vote was taken; the bill remains pending before the Judiciary Committee for future consideration.","The Judiciary Committee began consideration of Substitute for House Bill 7196 on May 20, a measure limiting the enforceability of noncompete covenants and imposing notice requirements for employers, but the committee adjourned before taking a vote.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judiciary committee advances tobacco, vape regulation bill after removing section on premium cigars

Judiciary committee opens debate on limits to noncompete agreements; discussion ends with adjournment