BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 482
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 18, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION
Richard S. Gordon, Chair
SB 482 (Hill) - As Introduced: February 21, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 36-0
SUBJECT : Point-of-sale systems.
SUMMARY : Deletes the January 1, 2014 sunset date on a
provision of existing law allowing local officials to verify the
accuracy of point-of-sale (POS) transaction systems.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the operator of a business establishment that uses a
POS to sell goods or services to consumers to ensure that the
price of each good or service to be paid by the consumer is
conspicuously displayed to the consumer at the time the price
is interpreted by the system. (Business and Professions Code
(BPC) Section 13300)
2)Authorizes the board of supervisors of any county, or city and
county that has adopted an ordinance for the purpose of
determining the pricing accuracy of a retail establishment
using a POS system to perform an initial standard inspection
based on the following:
a) The initial standard inspection shall be performed by
collecting a random sample of items that shall include a
maximum of 50% sale items from either:
i) One department of a retail store;
ii) Multiple areas of a retail store; or,
iii) The entire store.
b) The initial standard inspection shall be performed be
testing a minimum random sample of 10 items for a retail
establishment with three or fewer POS checkout registers;
c) The initial standard inspection shall be performed by
SB 482
Page 2
testing a minimum random sample of 25 items for a retail
establishment with four to nine POS checkout registers;
d) The initial standard inspection shall be performed by
testing a minimum random sample of 50 items for retail
establishments with 10 or more POS checkout registers;
e) The sealer shall verify that the lowest advertisement,
posted, marked, displayed or quoted price is the same as
the price displayed or computed by the POS equipment or
printed receipt and specifies the requirement for items
that are not in compliance;
f) The minimum random sample size shall not apply to
inspections of any establishment at which fewer items than
the number specified as the minimum sample size are marked
or displayed with a posted or advertised item price;
g) The maximum percentage of sale item restriction as
specified, shall not apply to inspections of any
establishment at which a marketing or promotional practice
does not enable the random sample as specified; and,
h) The compliance rate percentage of a retail establishment
shall be determined by dividing the number of items in
compliance by the sample size multiplied by 100. (BPC
13350)
3) Provides that enforcement action may be taken for any item
not in compliance. (BPC 13350)
4)Authorizes the sealer to reinspect any retail facility that
has a compliance rate of less than 98%. (BPC 13350)
5)Authorizes the board of supervisors, by ordinance, to charge a
POS inspection fee or an annual registration fee as specified.
(BPC 13350)
6)Authorizes the board of supervisors, by ordinance, to charge a
resinspection fee as specified. (BPC 13350)
7)Authorizes the Attorney General, the district attorney or city
attorney to enforce the regulations of POS. (BPC 13301)
8)Defines a POS to mean "any computer or electronic system used
SB 482
Page 3
by a retail establishment such as, but not limited to,
Universal Product Code scanners, price lookup codes, or an
electronic price lookup system as a means for determining the
price of the item being purchased by a consumer." (BPC 13352)
9)Repeals the provisions allowing local officials to verify the
pricing accuracy of POS systems on January 1, 2014. (BPC
13357)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the bill . This bill repeals the sunset provision
allowing local governments to verify the pricing accuracy of
POS systems. Current law authorizes a county or city and
county to charge inspection fees, inspect, and take
enforcement actions for violations of pricing accuracy on
retail POS systems. By removing the sunset date, this bill
extends the authority of counties to continue inspecting POS
systems for pricing accuracy indefinitely. This bill is
sponsored by the author.
2)Author's statement . According to the author, "[This] bill is
necessary to ensure that the consumer protections contained in
[AB 889 (Ruskin), Chapter 529, Statutes of 2005] and [AB 1907
(Ruskin), Chapter 434, Statutes of 2008] are in statute
permanently. AB 889 granted counties the authority to inspect
the pricing accuracy of retail [POS] systems and set the
appropriate fee schedule for doing so."
3)POS systems . Under current law, a POS system is any
electronic device such as a Universal Product Code scanner,
price lookup codes, an electronic price lookup system or any
other device that determines the price of an item being
purchased by a consumer. Many California retailers utilize
POS systems to streamline pricing and inventory controls.
These sophisticated devices help to provide consumers with
accurate pricing information for scanned retail items.
Current law grants county boards of supervisors with the option
to participate in the inspection and enforcement of these
systems to help ensure that the prices posted for consumers
are accurate. 22 of the 58 counties in California currently
utilize this authority to inspect POS systems. Counties may
SB 482
Page 4
perform standard periodic inspections where the inspectors
sample items depending on the size of the store and the
numbers of POS systems it contains.
In order for an item to be in compliance, the scanned item
must match the lowest advertised, marked, displayed or quoted
price. If a retail establishment does not meet a 98% accuracy
rate, enforcement actions may be taken and the county may
authorize a re-inspection at which time the retailer may be
required to pay a re-inspection fee as determined by the
county. Currently, the law authorizing the inspection process
and setting standards for POS systems is set to repeal on
January 1, 2014. This bill will remove that sunset provision
and allow counties to retain authority to monitor and inspect
POS systems indefinitely.
4)Weights and Measures . Enforcement of California's weights and
measures laws and regulations is the responsibility of the
Division of Measurement Standards (DMS) under the California
Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). The DMS works with
county sealers of weights and measures who, under the
supervision and direction of the Secretary of CDFA, carry out
many of the weights and measures inspection and enforcement
activities at the local level. County weights and measures
officials inspect and test packaged commodities and all
commercially used devices. Weights and measures officials
have the authority to issue citations for misdemeanor and
infraction violations involving weights and measures laws,
however, in the case of POS inspection, this is very rare.
Most of the time, a re-inspection will normally show that the
original error was inadvertent and temporary.
5)Problems with POS systems . Because POS systems are a complex
arrangement of hardware, software and inputted data,
unintentional errors can arise. For example, software and
server systems can fail, or pricing data may be entered
inaccurately. For this reason, re-inspection after a finding
of inaccuracy is important to establish that the problem was
temporary.
6)Arguments in support . The California Agricultural
Commissioners and Sealers Association (CACASA) writes in
support, "[This bill] will remove the sunset provision on the
existing point-of-sale system uniform inspection procedure
program. CACASA worked closely with industry representatives
SB 482
Page 5
during the crafting of the existing methodology to inspect
point-of-sale devices at retail establishments in the State.
The inspection process involves testing a representative
sample of items from a retail establishment and determining
whether the advertised price matches what the consumer is
charged. All affected parties have gathered to discuss the
merits of the scanner inspection program and have agreed that
local oversight benefits not only the consumer through more
accurate and fair pricing at the marketplace, but also the
industry through the creation of a level."
7)Previous legislation . AB 1907 (Ruskin), Chapter 434, Statutes
of 2008, extended the sunset date on the POS law from January
1, 2009 to January 1, 2014.
AB 2285 (Ruskin), Chapter 556, Statutes of 2006, made changes to
the list of items required to be displayed for consumers by
automatic checkout systems, and recast the term "automatic
checkout" to refer to the term "POS" and modified the
definition of a POS system.
AB 889 (Ruskin), Chapter 529, Statutes of 2005, extended the
authority of county sealers of weights and measures to levy
civil penalties for violations, extended the sunset on the
authority for counties to charge an annual device registration
fee, updated and revised fee schedule levels, and extended
until January 1, 2009 the authority for counties to inspect
the pricing accuracy of retail POS systems.
AB 2732 (Washington), Chapter 818, Statutes of 2002, required
automatic checkout systems to display the price read by the
computer. It also required a business that uses an automatic
checkout system to ensure that the price of the goods or
services registered by the computer is conspicuously displayed
to the consumer, along with any price reductions, taxes,
surcharges and the total amount of the transaction, and
authorized enforcement by local governments.
SB 369 (Kopp) of 1997, would have required CDFA to adopt
regulations relating to retail scanner accuracy, including
regulations to verify the accuracy of advertised prices, price
representations and computations related to retail scanners.
This bill would have authorized counties to charge the owner
or operator of retail scanners an annual registration fee to
recover the costs of inspection and impose other requirements.
SB 482
Page 6
SB 369 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Agricultural Commissioner and Sealers Association
California Grocers Association
California Retailers Association
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Elissa Silva / B.,P. & C.P. / (916)
319-3301