SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.
Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.
“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.
California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers and resellers who falsely claim to be breeders. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.
PuppySpot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot Chief Executive Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that the company’s online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.
“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” Komorowski wrote.
The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.
“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill.
If signed into law, Brittany Benesi, a senior director for state legislation at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said California will solidify its reputation as a “trailblazer in animal welfare.”
Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up their session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.
AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill also would make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.
The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested certificates of veterinary inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification that it is healthy enough to travel.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.
The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.
After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal advocates called on the state’s Food and Agriculture Department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but so far has released the records with significant redactions.
Senate Bill 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the department, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.
Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society, said the bills together would close dangerous loopholes exploited by those looking to profit off animals.
“Consumers deserve complete transparency about the flood of puppies entering our state — this is not just about protecting people from unhealthy pets, but about stopping the cruel pipeline from puppy mills,” Weitzman said.
