Skip to content

Session Expired

Your session has expired. Please sign in again to continue where you left off.

Sign In Again

HI SB157: Relating To Antitrust.

Dead/Failed Hawaii

Last verified Oct 10, 2026 · official bill text

SB157 · where it stands

This bill did not become law (dead/failed) · last action Dec 8, 2025.

What do these statuses mean?
Introduced
Filed in the legislature; may be waiting for a committee hearing.
Passed a chamber
Approved by one or both chambers; awaiting further action.
Enacted
Signed into law, or became law without a signature or over a veto.
Effective date
The date the law says it takes effect. Once it has passed, the page shows "Effective" and the date. A court order can still block a law; if we know of one, the summary says so.
Dead / vetoed
Vetoed, failed, or the session ended without action.

In one paragraph

Hawaii's Senate Bill 157 (2025), as amended in SD 2, would have made it unlawful for a software or data analytics service to collect rent, supply or lease-date data from two or more landlords, process it with computation (including to train an algorithm) and recommend rents, and for two or more landlords to engage in consciously parallel pricing coordination. Penalties would have reached $100,000 for individuals and $1,000,000 for entities. It passed the Senate March 4, 2025, was carried over to 2026 and not enacted. It stated a July 1, 2050 effective date.

Plain-English summary, written with AI assistance. The official text controls.

What it means for business

None: the bill was not enacted. If enacted, rental pricing software or data services and landlords sharing pricing data would have faced antitrust liability.

Key provisions

  1. Would have made it unlawful for a 'coordinator' to perform a coordinating function or facilitate an agreement among rental owners restricting competition, and for two or more owners to engage in consciously parallel pricing coordination
  2. 'Coordinating function' includes collecting prices, supply or lease dates from two or more owners, analyzing them with software or a process that uses computation, including to train an algorithm, and recommending rents, lease renewal terms or occupancy levels
  3. Would have added the section to the penalty provision, section 480-16: individuals up to $100,000, up to three years in prison or both; entities up to $1,000,000
  4. Would have required the Attorney General to run a public education program and adopt rules, and eased the pleading standard for civil complaints
  5. Passed the Senate March 4, 2025; referred in the House to CPC, JHA, FIN March 6, 2025; carried over to the 2026 session December 8, 2025; stated effective date July 1, 2050; the 2026 House bill HB 2611 carried the same measure and also died

Latest legislative action

Dec 8, 2025. Carried over to 2026 Regular Session.

Sponsors (showing 5 of 12)

NameRole
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary

Roll call votes (showing 3 of 4)

Report adopted; Passed Third Reading, as amended (SD 2). Mar 4, 2025

25 yea0 nayPassed

The committee(s) on WAM recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. Feb 26, 2025

13 yea0 nayPassed

The committee(s) on JDC recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. Feb 26, 2025

5 yea0 nayPassed

Related and companion bills

Topics and industries

Related topics

Affected industries

This page is general information, not legal advice. Summaries are AI-assisted and may contain errors; read the statute for the controlling text and talk to a lawyer about your situation. Full disclaimer · Report an error