Written Testimony of Jon B. Hurst, President
Retailers Association of Massachusetts
Before the Jt. Committee on Consumer Protection & Professional Licensure
Re: H254, S123 & S126
July 14, 2009

The Retailers Association of Massachusetts (RAM), established in 1920, is a statewide trade association of over 3,200 member companies.  Our membership ranges from independent, “mom and pop” owned stores to larger, national chains operating in the general retail, restaurant and service sectors of the retail industry.  The industry's contributions to the Commonwealth include over $112 billion in annual sales; over $5.7 billion in annual sales and use taxes collected; 17% of all Massachusetts jobs; and operations in over 38,000 locations across the state.

The Retailers Association of Massachusetts wishes to be recorded in opposition to H254, S123 and S126.  In tough economic times, it is important that we don't disadvantage our local employers with undue regulation, and duplicative and conflicting regulation at different levels of government.  Local sellers must compete with merchant not only in border states, but increasingly online.  In this difficult climate, we need to look at ways to make operating and employing people in Massachusetts easier, not more costly than what exists in stores over the border or on the computer screen.     

H254 seeks to regulate retail advertising, but it is very important to point out that very extensive state regulations already exist under the Massachusetts Attorney General as well as under the Federal Trade Commission.  In fact the regulations under the Attorney General are now being updated to address more recent issues since they were first promulgated 20 years ago.  The new draft regulations take into account existing Internet marketing and streamline certain antiquated requirements.

S123 would update and improve the antiquated food store/food department item pricing law—a very important and laudable goal.  RAM strongly supports food store/department item pricing reform for our hundreds of food sellers and will actively support legislation in the Community Development and Small Business Committee.  (H198, H208, H212, H3649, S98).  However, the approach this bill takes would be to give relief to food sellers, but at the expense of creating increased costs, red tape, fees and bureaucracy for the majority of the retailing industry (small businesses and non-food sellers).  The proper way to fix the item pricing overregulation problem is to simply update the current food store law by allowing practices and technology currently permitted in non-food stores.  (See above listed bills).  But to subject non-food stores to costs and regulation they currently do not face here or in any other state, is simply politically and economically wrong.

S126 would create unfair return policies which do not exist for stores over the border or on line.  The current law which allows stores to have any policy they wish as long as it is properly posted and disclosed is the proper way to regulate returns without disadvantaging local employers.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.