Chair Abreu asks DCWP about enforcement against retailers under Section 20-610

My last set of questions are against, sorry, not against, are enforcement against retailers by DCWP.

According to previous statements from DCWP, Department of Consumer Worker Protection, one issue the agency has encountered regarding enforcement against retailers is that Section 20-610 of the Administrative Code,

which prohibits the sale and rental of uncertified e-bikes and batteries, is too forgiving.

This is because when a business first violates such prohibition, DCWP can actually issue a penalty, as Section 20-610 provides that the first violation carries a civil penalty of $0.

Only after catching the business violating 20-610 a second time,

Within two years of the first violation, can DCWP issue a fine, and even then the fine is only $250.

However, despite these issues, it appears the city's enforcement efforts continue to rely primarily on Section 2610.

Can you explain the issues DCWP...

W.P.

Has faced in enforcing Section 2610 and whether DCWP still feels that its penalty structure and particularly the inability to find a business for their first violation makes it harder to achieve compliance.

I think it does, Chair.

As a general matter, we're a law enforcement agency.

I believe strongly in the importance of deterrence.

And when you get a get-out-of-jail-free, so to speak, for your first violation, that doesn't deter the worst conduct.

I will say that our enforcement is having results.

We are seeing more compliance by businesses.

A lot of these businesses quickly do come into compliance, and I want to recognize that maybe they were not aware of their legal obligations.

But given the very serious issues that the council and our city are confronting around safety, I think we'd be very open to a conversation about changing the first-time penalty structure for these laws.