N※N

PA Consumer Protection Bill Stalled Amid Business Opposition

  //business-finance.news-articles.net/content/202 .. ction-bill-stalled-amid-business-opposition.html
  Published in Business and Finance on Monday, February 23rd 2026 at 13:15 GMT by WFMZ-TV
      Locales: Pennsylvania, Texas, California, Florida, UNITED STATES

Harrisburg, PA - February 23rd, 2026 - Pennsylvania remains an outlier in consumer protection, lagging behind states like California and New York in providing residents with a direct legal avenue to challenge deceptive advertising and false claims. A bill currently stalled in the state legislature, if passed, would empower Pennsylvania consumers to sue companies for misleading marketing practices, a right already enjoyed - and financially benefiting from - residents in numerous other states. But strong opposition from business groups continues to block its progress.

The core of the debate centers around establishing a "private right of action," meaning individuals can directly pursue legal claims against companies, rather than relying solely on state enforcement actions. Currently, Pennsylvania consumers facing misleading marketing face significant hurdles in seeking redress. While the state Attorney General's office investigates consumer complaints, resources are limited, and individual recovery of losses is often difficult to achieve.

Representative Jared Solomon (D-Philadelphia), a key sponsor of the bill, argues that the current system leaves Pennsylvanians vulnerable. "The idea is to allow consumers to have a real recourse when companies make false or misleading claims," he explained. "It's about leveling the playing field and holding businesses accountable for their promises."

The proposed legislation draws heavily from successful models in California and New York. California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) has become a powerful tool for consumer advocacy, generating billions of dollars in recoveries through lawsuits targeting a wide range of deceptive practices, from false advertising to product defects. New York's similar law has also proven fruitful, consistently yielding millions of dollars in settlements and judgments. These states have demonstrably shown that a private right of action can be a powerful deterrent against fraudulent business conduct and a significant source of financial restitution for harmed consumers.

However, the path to enacting this change in Pennsylvania has been fraught with resistance. The Pennsylvania Business Council, representing a broad spectrum of industries, has emerged as a vocal opponent, voicing concerns that the bill will unleash a wave of frivolous lawsuits and impose substantial costs on businesses. Rob McCord, the council's president, warned, "We're talking about a potentially huge influx of litigation. That's going to be costly for everyone involved."

This fear of litigation is not unfounded. Businesses often argue that even meritless lawsuits require costly legal defenses, diverting resources from innovation and growth. They also express concern that the ambiguity of terms like "misleading" and "deceptive" could open the door to subjective interpretations and opportunistic litigation.

Bill sponsors are attempting to address these concerns by emphasizing that the legislation will be carefully crafted to include safeguards against frivolous claims. Solomon asserts, "We want to make sure that consumers have a way to protect themselves, but we also want to make sure that businesses can operate without being subjected to frivolous litigation." Proposed provisions likely include requirements for demonstrating actual harm, limiting punitive damages, and providing mechanisms for early dismissal of weak cases.

The legislative landscape further complicates the bill's prospects. Republicans hold a narrow majority in the Pennsylvania House, making bipartisan support crucial for passage. While some moderate Republicans may be open to considering consumer protection measures, others remain skeptical, aligning with business interests. The timing is also critical, with the legislative session nearing its conclusion and other pressing issues vying for attention.

The debate in Pennsylvania mirrors a broader national conversation about the balance between consumer rights and business interests. Proponents argue that empowering consumers fosters market integrity and encourages ethical business practices. Opponents contend that overregulation stifles innovation and economic growth. The outcome in Pennsylvania could set a precedent for other states considering similar legislation.

As of today, February 23rd, 2026, there is no clear timeline for a vote on the bill. WFMZ's ongoing investigation into consumer protection in Pennsylvania will continue to monitor the legislative process and provide updates as they become available. The question remains: will Pennsylvania join the growing number of states that prioritize consumer recourse, or will it continue to leave its residents vulnerable to deceptive business practices?