Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill limits civil and criminal liability for persons, nonprofits, and state or local governments that in good faith donate "apparently fit" pet food or supplies for distribution to pets, emotional support animals, or service animals. It defines covered terms, excludes gross negligence or intentional misconduct from the liability protections, allows for conditional donations if recipients agree to recondition items to meet standards, and states it does not create new liability or supersede state or local health regulations.
Left emphasizes animal welfare and reconditioning resources.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and specifically creates a statutory immunity regime for good-faith donations of pet food and supplies, with well-defined beneficiaries, covered items, and explicit exceptions; it integrates relevant existing definitions and includes a partial-compliance mechanism.
The bill limits civil and criminal liability for persons, nonprofits, and state or local governments that in good faith donate "apparently fit" pet food or supplies for distribution to pets, emotional support animals, or service animals.
It defines covered terms, excludes gross negligence or intentional misconduct from the liability protections, allows for conditional donations if recipients agree to recondition items to meet standards, and states it does not create new liability or supersede state or local health regulations.
Content is narrow, low-cost, and administratively straightforward—factors that historically increase enactment likelihood—though committee action and floor scheduling remain gatekeepers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and specifically creates a statutory immunity regime for good-faith donations of pet food and supplies, with well-defined beneficiaries, covered items, and explicit exceptions; it integrates relevant existing definitions and includes a partial-compliance mechanism.
Left emphasizes animal welfare and reconditioning resources.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes animal welfare and reconditioning resources.
Likely favorable overall because it reduces waste and helps animals and households that rely on pets.
Supporters will want strong safeguards for animal health and clear reconditioning standards.
Generally supportive because it is narrowly targeted and mirrors existing food-donation law.
Will seek clarity on implementation, standards, and interactions with state rules.
Likely supportive due to liability limitation and support for voluntary private charity.
Some conservatives may still want stronger deference to state regulation and minimal federal definitions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow, low-cost, and administratively straightforward—factors that historically increase enactment likelihood—though committee action and floor scheduling remain gatekeepers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes animal welfare and reconditioning resources.
Content is narrow, low-cost, and administratively straightforward—factors that historically increase enactment likelihood—though committee…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and specifically creates a statutory immunity regime for good-faith donations of pet food and supplies, with well-defined beneficiaries, covered items, and ex…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.