Baltimore City and business groups clash over extending local consumer‑protection filing window to three years

Delegate Embry presented HB1105 as a limited, civil‑only change that would align local governments’ statute of limitations for consumer‑protection enforcement with the discovery rule used in private tort actions — three years from when the enforcer knew or reasonably should have known of the violation.

Christopher Souza, a litigator in Baltimore City’s Law Department, and Nina Themelis, Baltimore City government affairs director, said the one‑year window currently hamstrings local investigatory powers for complex consumer practices, from fintech products to earned‑wage access issues. Souza described the city’s local ordinance, subpoena powers for pre‑suit investigation and other tools that require time to assemble evidence.

Opponents, including Grayson Wiggins of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce and Hugo Cantu of the Apartment and Office Building Association, warned the change risks producing 24 overlapping local schemes with differing limitations and enforcement approaches. They raised concerns that the bill's discovery/tolling language would expand enforcement exposure for multi‑jurisdictional businesses and intersect awkwardly with ongoing bills altering civil penalties in Baltimore City.

Committee members asked whether examples existed where one‑year limits prevented viable local cases; witnesses described investigations curtailed by short windows but declined to detail active, nonpublic probes. Members also questioned whether delegating enforcement to localities duplicated Attorney General functions; proponents maintained local units often supplement state and federal enforcement, especially given reduced federal activity.

The hearing included detailed local/state comparisons and calls for follow‑up on whether concurrent jurisdiction rules or other coordination mechanisms could reduce business compliance complexity.