The Senate Business and Labor Standing Committee met Feb. 14 and voted to advance several bills, most notably a narrowed consumer‑AI disclosure measure, a change to residential child‑care certification thresholds, and a pari‑mutuel racing bill that would go to local ballot approval.

S.B. 226: Artificial‑intelligence consumer protections

Senator Cullimore presented a second substitute to S.B. 226 that narrows state disclosure requirements when consumers interact with automated systems. The substitute keeps an upfront disclosure requirement for what the bill defines as “high‑risk” interactions — specifically financial, legal, medical or mental‑health services — and creates a safe harbor if providers “conspicuously disclose at the outset of an interaction” and meet the bill’s other conditions, Cullimore said. "There is a safe harbor … a person is not subject [to] enforcement if they demonstrate that they did conspicuously disclose at the outset of an interaction that they're dealing with AI," he said.

The committee substituted the bill and then voted to favorably recommend the second substitute by voice vote; the clerk recorded the committee action as unanimous, 5–0. The committee record shows the Division of Consumer Protection and the attorney general would retain enforcement authority under the measure as written.

Why it matters: The substitute narrows a broader set of requirements from last year so smaller regulated businesses (from barbers to nail salons, as discussed in the hearing) are less likely to be swept into wide disclosure duties while preserving notifications for higher‑risk consumer interactions.

S.B. 221: Child‑care residential certificate (first substitute)

Senator Escamilla introduced a first substitute of S.B. 221 to restore a residential child‑care certification threshold the bill sponsor said existed prior to recent deregulation. The substitute would require individuals providing paid child care to meet basic safety and certification steps once they care for more than four children who are not related to them; the statute also retains a long‑standing cap that no more than 10 total children may be present in the household.

Experts and advocates testified in support. Katie Rickard of the Utah Association for the Education of Young Children told the committee, “The bottom line of this bill is safety,” and cited safety concerns tied to adult‑to‑child ratios, training and environmental hazards. Anna Thomas of Voices for Utah Children told the committee the statute “explicitly say[s] in the statute that you can't watch more than 10 total kids,” clarifying how related children are counted under the cap. Parent and nonprofit speakers — including a parent who said the bill “gives parents and people in our neighborhoods peace of mind” and United Way of Salt Lake — also spoke in favor.

Sponsor statements provided numeric context from the committee record: Utah previously regulated roughly 1,500 child‑care providers; at the end of last year, only 12 providers had completed the criminal‑background component that the sponsor said the substitute seeks to restore as a baseline safety measure.

The committee voted to favorably recommend the first substitute to the full Senate; the motion passed 4–2 with Senators Cullimore and Weiler recorded in opposition.

Why it matters: The substitute restores a lower threshold for when basic certification, background checks and safety training apply to paid residential child care. Supporters said the change reduces risks to children and lets parents and certified providers demonstrate compliance; opponents worried about effects on informal caregivers and administrative burdens.

S.B. 156: Pari‑mutuel horse racing (first substitute)

Senator Hinkins introduced S.B. 156, a bill to restore pari‑mutuel racing under a regulatory framework and allow counties to put authorization on the ballot. Hinkins described pari‑mutuel wagering as historically distinct from games of pure chance and said regulation would permit drug testing, steward oversight and a racing commission to improve oversight and attract breeders and related economic activity; he cited a fiscal note projecting a potential positive revenue impact (sponsor referenced roughly $15 million in illustrative fiscal modeling).

Testimony split the hearing. The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food testified neutral and said it currently supervises sanctioned races; supporters — including longtime participants and breeders — described family‑oriented industry benefits and local job creation. Opposition testimony raised gambling expansion concerns and downstream effects under federal Indian gaming law; Reina Williams of the Utah Eagle Forum urged the committee to reject S.B. 156, saying expanded legal gambling can lead to further downstream casino pressure.

The committee substituted the bill and then voted to favorably recommend the first substitute; the motion passed 4–3. The roll call recorded Senators Bridal, Musselman and Wyler voting in opposition.

Why it matters: The bill would not immediately legalize statewide pari‑mutuel wagering. Instead it would create a process for local jurisdictions to authorize pari‑mutuel racing and establish state regulatory structures for testing and oversight; proponents framed it as economic development for breeders and related businesses, opponents warned of gambling‑related harms and tribal compact implications.

Other committee action (votes at a glance)

- S.B. 179 (local regulation of unlisted business uses): Passed favorably as amended, 6–0.
- S.B. 220 (stormwater inspection / MS4 administrative changes; electronic self‑inspection and enforcement clarifications): Favorably recommended, 7–0. Testimony included municipal and UDOT support and League of Cities participation in technical negotiations.
- S.B. 226 (AI consumer protections, second substitute): Favorably recommended, 5–0 (see above).
- S.B. 245 (newborn child insurance notification amendments): Favorably recommended, 7–0. The bill would require employers to give written notice to employees who request maternity or FMLA leave about the time window to enroll a newborn in group health plans; some insurers and industry representatives urged careful drafting about who bears the notice burden.
- H.B. 24 (limitations on liability — repeal date extension): Favorably recommended, 7–0 (technical repeal‑date extension for existing liability provisions).
- H.B. 23 (insurance modifications, second substitute, includes captive/county pool changes and level‑funding grandfathering): Favorably recommended, unanimous. The final substitute contains a compromise on level‑funding and grandfathering intended to stabilize the small‑group market and make Utah’s captive domicile rules more competitive.

Committee process and next steps

All bills the committee favorably recommended will go to the full Senate for committee of the whole or floor consideration under Senate procedures. Several items (notably childcare and the pari‑mutuel proposal) drew extended public testimony and a mix of stakeholder comment; sponsors and committee members said they are open to further technical fixes as the measures advance.

Ending

Committee members emphasized the local‑control elements in several of the bills and the technical negotiations that shaped substitutes. Where bills create new regulatory authorities or notification duties, committee members asked sponsors to continue discussions with affected agencies and stakeholders as the measures move to the Senate floor.