Consumer Protection

What’s Hot … Mid-session Updates: FL, GA, HI, IA, and MD

 

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Florida
There have been many attempts over the past 29 years to regulate dog breeders in the state. Once again, those efforts died when SB 1356 and HB 1521 failed to progress.
Senate Bill 1004 amends the consumer protection laws governing pet sales and animal cruelty. It has been enrolled and sent to the governor. If enacted, the pet dealer threshold is raised to selling more than three litters or 30 dogs or cats per year, record-
keeping requirements are added for all pet dealers, and best management practices are established for dog breeders. The bill was signed by the governor.

Georgia
Senate Bill 590 would have expanded regulations on dog breeders had it been enacted. Cat breeders would not have been impacted. Georgia has one of the most restrictive cat and dog breeder laws in the country. Fortunately, the bill died and will not carry over into 2027.

Hawaii
Several bills were introduced in Hawaii that would have burdened cat and dog breeders. House Bill
1594 and SB 3012 would prohibit intact cats and dogs from being imported unless the breeder was registered with the
Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. House Bill 1736-2 would establish a spay/neuter fund at the cost of mandating the sterilization of all cats. Any free-roaming cats caught and sterilized could only be placed in sanctuaries. Fortunately, all these bills died and will not carry over to 2027. Fanciers should expect renewed efforts in 2027.

Iowa
Senate Bill 2306 would have subjected “commercial” breeders to inspection. It would have defined a commercial breeder as “a
person, engaged in the business of breeding dogs or cats, who sells, exchanges, or leases dogs or cats in return for consideration, or who offers to do so, whether or not the animals are raised, trained, groomed, or boarded by the person. A person who owns or harbors three or fewer breeding males or females is not a commercial breeder.” It died.

Maryland
House Bill 1551 died when the legislature adjourned. The bill would have established the Dog Breeder Accountability
Fund and imposed mandates on dog breeders, including requiring that every puppy be issued a birth certificate by the state.

What’s Hot: California 2025 Session Laws:  The State Enacts Laws Affecting Breeders Selling to California Purchasers and a Cat Declaw Prohibition

 

November 4, 2025

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

California lawmakers enacted new legislation affecting all breeders, not just pet dealers, as part of their ongoing effort to block “puppy, kitten, or rabbit mill” sales into the state. The campaign began with the 2017 retail pet store prohibition, which proponents claimed would end the mill pipeline into the state by prohibiting retail pet stores from selling cats, dogs, and rabbits. As pet stores could showcase these animals for rescues, some organizations set themselves up as rescues to sell their animals, forcing the state to redefine what constitutes a rescue in 2021. After that, lawmakers focused on the new trend of bad actors importing animals to sell under the pretense that they are California-bred animals offered by small home breeders. This led to the latest round of legislation enacted in 2025. The new requirements apply to all persons, pet dealers, or businesses when the purchaser is located in California.

Assembly Bill 506 mandates that the seller must provide written notice of the original source of the animal, identify the breeder, including the USDA license number when applicable, and the state in which the animal was born. If any information is unknown, the seller must clearly state that fact. The seller must also provide a record of inoculations, worming treatments, and any veterinary treatment of the animal while in the possession of the seller.

The bill also removes a tool many breeders use to ensure the buyer is committed to the purchase —the nonrefundable deposit. Section 122227 (a) makes a contract by a person, pet dealer, or business with a purchaser located in California that requires a nonrefundable deposit void under public policy. Breeders know that as a kitten ages, fewer buyers are available, which affects its price. A nonrefundable deposit not only indicates a commitment but also compensates the seller for a loss if the buyer backs out of the sale. The Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act defines a pet dealer as “a person engaging in the business of selling dogs or cats, or both, at retail, and by virtue of the sales of dogs or cats is required to possess a permit pursuant to Section 6066 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.”

In addition to AB 506, lawmakers enacted AB 519, prohibiting brokers from making a dog under one year of age, a cat, or a rabbit for adoption or sale. A broker is defined as “a person or business that sells, arranges, negotiates, or processes, either in person or online, the sale of dogs, cats, or rabbits bred by another for profit. This includes facilitating the transfer of a dog, cat, or rabbit for profit.” [Emphasis added.] The term broker does not include an animal rescue group that meets the requirements of §122365 of that chapter.

Senate Bill 312 was also enacted to close gaps in the original Retail Pet store ban, but applies only to dogs. It requires persons importing dogs for resale or change of ownership to submit a health certificate completed by a licensed veterinarian to the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Also enacted during the 2025 session was the cat declawing bill, AB 867. This law mandates that an onychectomy, tendonectomy, surgical claw removal, or declaw, or any procedure that alters a feline’s toes, claws, or paws, be performed for therapeutic purposes only. Nail trimming and “nonsurgical scratching mitigation solutions” are not prohibited.

Legislation – What’s Hot…Dekalb County, Georgia, Commissioners Consider Litter Permits, Sales Restrictions, and Consumer Protection Provisions

 

September, 2024

Kelly Crouch, CFA Legislative Information Liaison

Georgia has a highly restrictive pet dealer statute, yet Dekalb County Commissioners are considering an even stricter ordinance. State regulations require any person that sells, exchanges, or adopts more than one litter or 30 adult animals in any 12-month period or is otherwise required to be licensed to get a pet dealer license. Dekalb County, with the fourth highest population in Georgia and containing the easternmost 10% of Atlanta, is considering regulating all breeders. The proposed ordinance would mandate companion animal litter permits without exception, consumer protection provisions, and restrictions on selling cats and dogs. According to the ordinance recitals, reducing a “serious pet overpopulation problem” is necessary due to uncontrolled breeding. Proponents of these ordinances sometimes argue that the direct and indirect costs of not regulating small breeders are too high. Those costs include unreported income and sales taxes, licensing violations, and support of criminal enterprise (i.e., dog fighting). 

If adopted, the ordinance would require owners of intact female companion animals to obtain a six-month Companion Animal Litter Permit prior to or within one week after the birth of a litter. The animal must have an intact animal permit and be permanently identified before a litter permit will be issued. Only one permit per female will be allowed in a 12-month period. The number of permits a household may obtain in a 12-month period is also limited, but it is currently silent as to the number allowed. It is also silent on the cost of the permits. The ordinance also includes other mandates, including vaccinations, identification of the offspring, advertising requirements, and record-keeping.

Although Dekalb County Animal Services may waive the permit fees for rescues and fosters, they are subject to all the other provisions. On August 27, the Board of Commissioners deferred consideration of the ordinance to the October 8, 2024 meeting.

You are our eyes and ears! Is detrimental legislation happening in your area? Please let us know. Contact the CFA Legislative Group at legislation@cfa.org

UPDATE – January 2019, CURRENT TOPICS IN LEGISLATION: Consumer Protection Pet Leases and Finance Legislation Must Preserve Fancier Breeding Lease Practices

 

In the year since the first post on pet leases and finance legislation, five additional states have enacted these laws — New York, Washington, Indiana, Connecticut and New Jersey. Of the total seven, only two have included express breeding lease exemptions as discussed in our first post. New Jersey did expressly exempt breeding leases for dogs as well as cats, but unfortunately Connecticut only included dogs, leaving uncertainty whether there was a legislative purpose for the omission or merely accommodation of a request to exempt dog breeding leases, perhaps not realizing that this is a practice of all pedigreed cat registries.

All five statutes without exemptions were narrowly drafted to focus on title to the pet not transferring to the lessee (person in possession who would typically be defined as “owner” under animal laws) until completion of all lease payments as well as the pet being security for performance of the lease and possible repossession by or on behalf of the lessor.  This is the simplest legislative drafting approach to avoid confusion about what might possibly be included rather than is actually prohibited.

Some proposed pet lease bills failed in 2019, so we would expect more efforts in 2020 and beyond. If breeding lease exemptions should be necessary, these should include BOTH purebred dogs AND PEDIGREED cats.

 

Scroll to Top