Senate bill’s 3-day hold sparks pushback in Rules Committee

A sweeping rewrite of Florida’s pet sale laws cleared the Senate Rules Committee this week, but not before exposing a sharp divide between the two chambers over one deceptively simple question: Should a puppy have to wait three extra days in a store because its new owner chose a payment plan?

SB 1004, sponsored by Sen. Don Gaetz, sailed through the Rules Committee hearing — its final stop before the full Senate floor — after the panel adopted a strike-all amendment that significantly broadened the original filing.

The bill now overhauls Section 828.29 of Florida Statutes, beefing up medical-record disclosures, stripping consumers’ ability to waive return rights, and imposing penalties under the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for noncompliant pet dealers.

But tucked inside the legislation is a provision that has become a flashpoint: a mandatory three-calendar-day waiting period between purchase and possession for any financed companion-animal transaction. That hold is the wedge now separating the Senate approach from its House counterpart (HB 1521), and industry stakeholders say the gap is not academic.

A cooling-off period — or a welfare risk?

Proponents of the three-day hold frame it as a consumer safeguard, giving families breathing room to review financing terms before they bond with an animal they might later have to return. Opponents counter that the provision fundamentally misunderstands who controls the money.

Retail pet stores do not set APRs or dictate repayment schedules — third-party financial institutions do, operating under their own regulatory framework and the federal Truth in Lending Act. By tethering a mandatory delay to a customer’s payment method, critics argue, the bill tries to solve a financing transparency problem by holding the puppy hostage.

The animal welfare implications are concrete. Puppies undergo critical socialization and bonding windows in their first weeks in a new environment. Veterinary behaviorists have long documented that early, stable placement reduces stress-related illness and behavioral problems.

Keeping a young animal in a retail setting for three additional days — solely because of how the transaction is financed — introduces exactly the kind of disruption the rest of the bill is ostensibly designed to prevent.

“Florida has a real opportunity to outline a modern framework that supports both consumers and the animals themselves,” said Sandy Moore, CEO of Pet Advocacy Network. “Strong standards, consistent disclosures, and policies that reflect how pets actually come into families’ homes — that’s the foundation that leads to better outcomes across the board.”

Two bills, two philosophies

Where the bills agree is significant. Both SB 1004 and the House measure push for stronger medical-record transparency, upfront disclosure of all financial terms before a sale closes, and penalty-free termination of financing agreements when an animal is returned as unfit. Both eliminate the existing provision that allowed consumers to waive their right to return an animal for congenital or hereditary disorders. Both extend the window for consumers to report a pet as unfit due to illness or disease from 14 days to 30 days after purchase. On paper, the shared ground is broad.

But the two measures diverge sharply in structure and scope. HB 1521 goes well beyond consumer-protection tweaks, standing up an entirely new framework for responsible breeding through the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

The bill directs the Department to develop voluntary best management practices covering breeding, feeding, housing, health, enrichment, and recordkeeping. It then creates the Dog Awareness and Welfare Guidelines — or DAWG — Breeder Program, a voluntary certification that lets breeders demonstrate compliance through inspections conducted by the Department, local law enforcement, animal services, or designated private providers, including Florida-licensed veterinarians with at least 10 years of practice.

Certified breeders can advertise their DAWG status, and the Department retains the authority to suspend or revoke the credential at any time.

Critically, the House bill preserves local authority: It explicitly states that nothing in the new breeding-standards section prohibits a local jurisdiction from imposing its own requirements on dog breeders.

It also broadens the definition of “pet dealer” to cover any person or entity that sells more than three litters or 30 dogs or cats per year — up from the current threshold of two litters or 20 animals — and clarifies that the term includes breeders who sell directly to consumers. Not-for-profit rescue organizations whose total sale or adoption cost does not exceed $500 are exempted.

The enforcement mechanisms tell their own story. SB 1004 routes violations through the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and subjects dealers to civil penalties. HB 1521 classifies violations as a first-degree misdemeanor, carrying criminal exposure under Sections 775.082 and 775.083 of Florida Statutes. The House bill requires dealers to retain sale-related records for at least three years; the Senate version mandates seven.

Supporters of the House approach describe it as a more calibrated bill that builds on documented best practices already in use across regulated settings — without layering on a payment-method-triggered hold that affects the animal’s care timeline. HB 1521 preserves the core consumer protections while keeping the animal’s transition into a home on a single, consistent track regardless of whether the buyer pays cash, swipes a card, or finances the purchase.

The Senate bill, by contrast, introduces a two-tier system: Cash buyers walk out with their new pet the same day; financing customers wait. Opponents of the provision say that distinction is both arbitrary and counterproductive. If the goal is informed consent on financing terms, they argue, the fix belongs in the disclosure process — not in the kennel.

What happens next

With SB 1004 now cleared through all three of its Senate committee references — Commerce and Tourism, Judiciary, and Rules  — the bill is positioned for a floor vote. Meanwhile, HB 1521 continues to advance on the House side. If both chambers pass their respective versions, the three-day hold and the absence of the DAWG Breeder Program from the Senate bill will almost certainly become central sticking points in any conference negotiations.

Florida already maintains one of the most detailed pet-purchase consumer-protection systems in the country, including comprehensive veterinary certification requirements and a warranty law that gives families clear recourse when problems arise. Lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol have signaled that modernizing that framework is overdue.

The question now is whether the final product will reflect the House’s broader, practice-based model — complete with a new voluntary breeding-standards program and criminal enforcement teeth — or the Senate’s more prescriptive approach, with its civil-penalty framework and a cooling-off period that may ultimately cool off the wrong party.

In Tallahassee, they’re debating payment terms. In the pet store, a puppy is still waiting to go home.