According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 4768 is not expected to have a significant fiscal implication to the state. The LBB assumes that any revenue implications associated with the bill would be insignificant.

The fiscal note does not identify a measurable cost to state agencies, despite the bill’s removal of Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation approval, certification, administration, monitoring, audit, and enforcement responsibilities for online responsible pet owner courses. The note lists the Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, and the Department of Licensing and Regulation as source agencies.

For local governments, the LBB likewise anticipates no significant fiscal implication. Because the bill preserves judicial discretion to order a responsible pet owner course as a community supervision condition, while removing state certification requirements for online courses, the expected fiscal effect is minimal for both state and local government.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 4768 because it moves existing law in a more limited-government direction. The bill does not create the underlying authority for judges to require a responsible pet owner course as a condition of community supervision; that authority already exists. Instead, the bill modifies that framework by removing the requirement that online responsible pet owner courses be approved and certified by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and by eliminating related TDLR/TCLR responsibilities for course approval, certification, administration, fees, rulemaking, monitoring, audits, and enforcement.

The bill does not appear to grow the size or scope of government. The House committee analysis states that the bill does not expressly grant additional rulemaking authority to any state officer, department, agency, or institution. In practical terms, the bill reduces agency discretion by replacing a state-administered certification system with basic statutory course requirements. That is a meaningful improvement from a limited-government standpoint because it removes an administrative layer while preserving clear legislative direction about course content.

The bill also does not appear to increase taxpayer burden. The LBB found that no significant fiscal implication to the state is anticipated, assumed any revenue implications would be insignificant, and found no significant fiscal implication to units of local government. Because the bill primarily removes agency oversight duties rather than creating a new state program, new grant structure, or new enforcement regime, taxpayer exposure appears minimal.

The bill does not increase the regulatory burden on individuals or businesses in the ordinary sense. To the contrary, it reduces regulatory burden on online course providers by removing TDLR approval and certification requirements. The bill does require online courses to be at least two hours and to cover specified topics, including animal cruelty laws, dogfighting laws, responsible animal care, animal bite prevention, and dog and cat breeder laws. However, those statutory requirements replace a broader agency-controlled approval and certification system rather than adding a new regulatory program on top of existing law.

The chief limited-government concern is that the bill leaves intact a court-imposed educational condition within community supervision. A stricter objection would be that the state should not require corrective education at all, even after conviction, and should instead rely on restitution, ordinary supervision conditions, or existing penalties. That concern is valid as a broader critique of current law, but HB 4768 does not expand the covered offenses, does not make the condition mandatory in every case, and does not increase criminal punishment. The committee analysis specifically states that the bill does not create a criminal offense, increase punishment, or change eligibility for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.

On balance, HB 4768 is best understood as a deregulatory correction to an existing supervision condition. It narrows state agency involvement, avoids new taxpayer costs, reduces administrative burdens on course providers, and leaves judicial discretion rather than imposing a universal mandate. While lawmakers could further improve the law by narrowing or repealing the underlying course-condition authority, the bill as written moves policy in the right direction.

• SB 2438 (Same As)