ATTORNEYS: Provides relative to unfair or deceptive acts or practices relative to attorney advertising
HB 677 addresses unfair or deceptive acts and practices related to attorney advertising. The bill aims to regulate how attorneys advertise their services, impacting legal professionals and the public who encounter their advertisements. Based on the provided text, a minor amendment changes the word "infers" to "implies" within the bill. However, the specific mechanisms or provisions detailing these regulations are not available in the provided bill text.
Bill status
passed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Apr 2025
Committee Review
Apr 2025
House Passage
May 2025
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Apr 29, 2025
Last action May 14, 2025
Maddy AI version diff · 2 comparisons
What changed between versions
HB677 Reengrossed
→
HB677 Engrossed
·
6 edits
·
May 12, 2025
MODERATE
The bill was renumbered from 'Reengrossed' to 'Engrossed' and simplified the list of sponsoring representatives from a group to a single sponsor. Substantively, the bill adds new definitions for terms like 'actually received' and 'media entity' to clarify what constitutes a deceptive advertisement regarding monetary results. It also expands liability for violations and clarifies that media entities are exempt from penalties for merely carrying advertisements.
Scope change
The bill's scope expanded to include specific definitions for 'actually received' and 'media entity,' and it clarified that media entities are not liable for simply displaying advertisements.
DEFINITION
Added specific definitions for 'actually received' (net amount after expenses) and 'media entity' (broadcasters, newspapers, etc.).
Added a definition for 'Advertisement' to include digital communications like text messages and digital ads.
ELIGIBILITY
Changed the list of bill sponsors from multiple representatives to a single representative.
STATUS
Updated the bill status from 'Reengrossed' to 'Engrossed', indicating the final version passed by the legislature.
ENFORCEMENT
Added provisions clarifying that media entities are not liable for violations if they only carried or distributed the advertisement.
Added a provision stating that approval of an advertisement by a licensing board serves as prima facie evidence of compliance with the law.
Floor votes · House May 12, 2025
How they voted
72–25
Passed · 4 other
Total votes 101
May 12, 2025
D
Democratic30
80% Nay
R
Republican71
98% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
10
Key actions
2
Committee
1
May 12, 2025
Lower · Passed
Read third time by title, amended, roll called on final passage, yeas 75, nays 25. Finally passed, title adopted, ordered to the Senate.
lower
Apr 29, 2025
Lower · Passed
Read by title, substitute title adopted, lies over in the same order of business, substitute for HB No. 430 reported by the Committee on Commerce (10-6).
lower
1 primary · 39 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Kim Carver
RRepublican
Co
BA
Beryl Amedée
RRepublican
Co
Beth Billings
RRepublican
Co
Brian Glorioso
RRepublican
Co
Chad Boyer
RRepublican
Co
Chance Henry
RRepublican
Co
Chuck Owen
RRepublican
Co
Dennis Bamburg
RRepublican
Co
Dewith Carrier
RRepublican
Co
Dixon McMakin
RRepublican
Co
Dodie Horton
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about HB 677
Scope: LA
Hi! I can help you understand HB 677. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline