This year Vermont became the most recent state to pass a law banning or restricting the sale of pets in retail establishments (joining California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Oregon and Washington). Vermont House Bill 567 was inserted as an amendment to Senate Bill 301, an omnibus Agricultural Appropriations bill that was signed into law on May 30 of this year and that took effect on July 1. The new legislation prohibits pet shops from selling dogs and cats, but grandfathers existing pet shops selling dogs and cats.
As we noted in our last report, although New York Assembly Bill 981 (prohibits pet stores from selling dogs, cats and rabbits) was signed in December 2022, it does not take effect until December 15 of this year. New York Assembly Bill 6863/Senate Bill 7595, which would have regulated the retail sale of pets through online platforms, died on adjournment.
Michigan continues to consider a state-wide pet sale ban for the first time. As discussed in our last update, Michigan House Bill 4838 was introduced and referred to committee on June 22, 2023. While the proposed legislation would prohibit a pet shop from arranging the sale, adoption, exchange, or transfer of a dog, cat, or rabbit, it also does not prohibit a pet shop from collaborating with and offering space to an animal shelter to showcase these companion animals . However, the bill expressly does not provide for a pet shop to retain an adoption or any other fee for providing space to showcase animals. The bill was reintroduced on May 28, 2024 and remains in committee. Pennsylvania House Bill 846, introduced in April 2023 and remaining in committee, would also ban the retail sale of dogs, cats and rabbits by pet shops in that state.
Illinois House Bill 2253 (introduced in April) would have prohibited the sale of rabbits by pet stores regardless of where they were obtained. That bill missed the April crossover deadline and did not progress. Ohio House Bill 443, which would modify the law governing the regulation of pet stores to make it a matter of statewide regulation, was introduced in March and remains in the Government Oversight Committee.
Pet sale ban bills were introduced in other state legislatures this year. New Hampshire House Bill 1680 and Senate Bill 541 were introduced in January and February and neither progressed over the session (SB541 was referred to study order and HB1680 was voted dead for the session). Kentucky House Bill 313 and Senate Bill 41 would have banned the sale of dogs, cats and rabbits by retail stores. Both bills were introduced in January but died in March after missing the crossover deadline. Kentucky Senate Bill 157, also introduced in January would have prohibited retail pet shops from selling dogs or cats unless the animal was obtained from an animal shelter or qualified breeder and prohibited retail pet shops from selling a dog or cat that is less than eight weeks old, or selling a dog or cat to anyone under the age of eighteen. The bill also would have preempted local governments from passing any ordinances that conflicted with this act. The bill similarly died in committee after missing the crossover deadline. Missouri House Bill 2265/Senate Bill 937 also did not make it out of the 2024 legislative session; these bills would have: 1) placed animal sourcing restrictions on pet shops and dealers; and 2) prohibited adoption of local ordinances restricting the operation of licensed pet shops.
Other states considering similar legislation include: Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky. All of these bills did not progress out of committee. Massachusetts also considered retail pet sale ban legislation this year with varying results. House Bill 747 (would restrict the sale of dogs, cats and rabbits in pet shops) was sent to study order (House Bill 4735). Senate Bill 2820 (in June this bill replaced HB826, SB549 and SB550) would prohibit the retail sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits in new pet shops. The bill was reported favorably by committee and referred to Senate Ways and Means. While the Massachusetts legislature adjourned on July 31, the bills remain in committee during the informal session, which expires at year’s end. New Jersey Assembly Bill 3883/Senate Bill 297 would have repealed the “Pet Purchase Protection Act” and replaced it with a prohibition on the sale of cats, dogs, and rabbits by pet shops. House Bill 3883 was withdrawn by its sponsor; Senate Bill 297 remains in the Economic Growth Committee. New Jersey House Bill 4051/Senate Bill 2511 similarly would have repealed the “Pet Purchase Protection Act” and replaced it with a prohibition on the sale of cats, dogs, and rabbits by pet shops. Both bills remain in committee.
To update some of the bills we’re following that carried over to 2024 from the 2023 session: Illinois House Bill 2793 (a retail pet sale ban/shelter sourcing model) died in committee, as did Minnesota House Bill 1276 and Senate Bill 1317 (retail pet sale ban on dogs and cats). Georgia House Bill 573 (would have prohibited the transfer of any dog, cat, or domestic rabbit at certain locations, including roadside and other public outdoor spaces) also died this session.
States also have passed or are contemplating so-called preemption legislation, which would protect pet stores from retail pet sale bans. For instance, Arizona House Bill 2515/Senate Bill 1046 would have made regulation of pet dealers a statewide concern and accordingly preempt local laws, rules, regulations or ordinances that impose requirements exceeding state statutes. Those bills were introduced in January and died in committee this June. Also introduced in the beginning of this year, Arizona Senate Bill 1237 would have provided state preemption over local ordinances regulating working animals. That bill was stricken from committee agenda.
Other preemption legislation considered this term include: Indiana Senate Bill 134 (missed crossover deadline), Missouri House Bill 2206 (died in committee upon adjournment), as mentioned above, Kentucky House Bill 157 (died in committee) and Kansas House Bill 2447 (died in committee). Wisconsin House Bill 957/Senate Bill 892 would have prohibited political subdivisions from adopting certain regulations for animal facilities in areas that are zoned exclusively or primarily for agricultural use, unless the activity being regulated presents a substantial threat to public health or safety. The definition of “animal facility” could theoretically include dog breeders or even pet stores as “or other commercial operation.” Those bills failed to pass.
Although Virginia was already among the list of states (Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington, New Jersey, Virginia, Indiana, California, Nevada and New York) prohibiting the leasing of dogs or cats, in 2024 it passed new legislation that seemingly narrows the prohibition. Enacted in April and effective July 1, Virginia House Bill 330 prohibits the financing of a dog or cat unless such financing complies with state and federal law provisions related to consumer credit.
Other pet leasing ban bills we have been watching failed to progress during the 2024 session. New York Assembly Bill 4058/Senate Bill 9019 would have prohibited online pet dealers from leasing and financing the sale or adoption of an animal, but would not have prohibited use of credit cards to pay for sale or adoption of dogs, cats or rabbits. Missouri House Bill 2647 would have established standards relating to retail charge agreements and installation contracts for companion animals. North Carolina House Bill 226 would have simply banned the practice in that state.
As in the past, states continue to raise standards for shelters. Held over from the 2023 session, New York Assembly Bill 6357 would have required animal shelters to annually report on intake and disposition of animals and the number of animals turned away. That bill did not progress out of committee and is dead for the session. California Senate Bill 1459 similarly would impose requirements on shelters to disclose and publish various information and data. That bill is held in committee. In January of 2024 Delaware adopted regulations imposing protocols on shelters relating to disease and behavioral enrichment.
Kansas House Bill 2794 and Minnesota House Bill 107 and Senate Bill 1139 all would have provided certain sales tax exemptions for pet shelters and rescue networks, but all three bills died this session.
As referenced in our last report, the United States House Resolution 3709 (“Keeping Pets and Families Together Act”) would amend the Animal Welfare Act to facilitate cooperative agreements between the federal government and animal shelters and award grants to support the microchipping of dogs and cats in shelters. That bill was introduced in May 2023 and referred to subcommittee on June 23 of the same year. It has not progressed.
States continue to raise standards for animal dealers and breeders as well. Enacted in March and effective July 1, 2024, Indiana House Bill 1412 regulates the retail sale of dogs. The new law requires retail pet stores, animal care facilities, and animal rescue operations to register with the Board of Animal Health; establishes mandatory disclosures and consumer warranties; establishes a random inspection program for commercial dog breeders, brokers, and retail pet stores beginning July 1, 2025; and voids local ordinances prohibiting the sale of dogs at retail pet stores. Signed in March and effective in May, Utah House Bill 478 establishes requirements for animal care by an animal care facility or a dog breeder; and criminalizes a violation of these animal care requirements as an infraction.
Still in committee, California Assembly Bill 2424 would, among other things, amend the current definition of “dog breeder” and provide for mandatory microchipping of dogs and documented health checks by breeders prior to sale. Illinois (Senate Bill 129 and 1230; House Bill 1373) contemplates changes to its definition of the term “dog dealer.” Those bills died in committee during the 2024 session, as did Illinois House Bill 3200, which would have required dog breeders to genetically test dogs for diseases that cause early death or physical impairments. New York Assembly Bill 3669 and Pennsylvania Senate Bill 701/House Bill 1318 and Senate Bill 702 would impose sourcing restrictions on dog and cat dealers. While the New York bill failed to progress, the Pennsylvania bills remain in committee.
Missouri House Bill 2723 and House Bill 2813 would have set animal welfare standards and other requirements and standards of care for animal care facilities and breeders, but both bills did not make it out of session. Tennessee House Bill 2938/Senate 2513 would have established a licensure process for commercial dog and cat breeders, but similarly died in session. Introduced this year and failing to progress, Kentucky House Bill 651 would have regulated and licensed commercial dog breeders and provided that all commercial dog breeders possess a valid license to operate in the county in which they operate. Minnesota House Bill 3410/Senate Bill 3458 died on the calendar, but would have amended cat and dog breeder information and advertising requirements. West Virginia House Bill 4935 (died in committee) would have provided primary enclosure standards; commercial dog breeder written disclosure requirements; and purchaser’s remedies. New Hampshire House 1102 would have added the sale of certain animals with deformities (such as brachycephaly) to the definition of animal cruelty. The bill
did not progress.
New York Assembly Bill 420/Senate Bill 1673 would have required pet stores to install and inspect fire protection systems. New York Assembly Bill 2001/Senate Bill 4108 would have required the registration and regulation of cat and dog breeders, as well as place sourcing restrictions on pet dealers. All of these bills died in session. Massachusetts House Bill 2040 similarly would restrict the sourcing of cats, dogs, and rabbits by pet shops while also amending existing consumer remedies and add a health record requirement to pet sales. House Bill 2027 would provide for licensing of commercial breeder kennels. These bills remain in committee during the state’s informal legislative session.
Ohio House Bill 539 (in committee) contemplates changes to the laws regulating high volume dog breeders.
As reported in our last update the federal government is taking action to regulate pet dealers. The “Puppy Protection Act of 2023” (United States House Resolution 1624) was introduced in March, and would require the Department of Agriculture to expand standards that govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals to include new requirements for commercial dog dealers. It remains pending in the House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.
Identical to the version referenced in our last regulatory update, in March 2023, House Resolution 1788 or “Goldie’s Act” was introduced and subsequently referred to the House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry. HR 1788 would amend the Animal Welfare Act to require that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have access to breeding facilities at all reasonable times, make inspections at least once a year, and record all violations. The bill remains pending in the House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.
States continue to propose and pass legislation seeking to regulate other animal related establishments, such as groomers, trainers, kennels and boarding establishments. Pennsylvania Senate Bill 82 was enacted in July, and like House Bill 2413 (still in committee), amends definitions; clarifies certain kennel license issuance and revocation provisions; and ensures out-of-state dogs (from adjacent states) can be accepted for boarding care at a Pennsylvania kennel provided the dog has a current rabies vaccination. Illinois Senate Bill 1372, which died this session after being carried over from 2023, would have created a dog training licensure act and board. Washington House Bill 2403 (died in committee) would have required kennels to meet certain fire safety standards. Massachusetts House Bill 4919 (a redrafting of previous bills originally entitled “Ollie’s Law”) would provide for licensure, standards of care and inspections for dog care facilities. The bill passed both houses this July and has been referred to the House Committee on Bills. Also pending is Massachusetts House Bill 853/Senate Bill 548 (similarly would provide for state rules and regulations for boarding kennels and daycare facilities for dogs, including home-based kennels and daycare facilities).
New Jersey Bill 1456/ Senate Bill 264 (introduced in January and currently in
committee) would require licensing of pet groomers; Assembly Bill 3676/Senate
Bill 67 would regulate and license dog trainers. New Hampshire House Bill 37
(held over to 2024 but dead for the session) would have established a committee
to study best practices for companion animal groomers. New York Senate Bill
4663 would provide for the registration and regulation of pet groomers; establish
standards of care, training and testing and provide that applicants must be at least
eighteen years of age. New York Senate Bill 5341/Assembly Bill 2718 would have
provided for the licensing of pet grooming facilities, establish standards of care and
require record keeping, but those bills died on adjournment. Massachusetts House
Bill 310 (pending in committee) similarly would establish a board of registration for
pet groomers and promulgate rules and regulations for standards of care.