If you’ve cut the cable cord and now use a video streaming service, you likely have had to deal with an issue you thought federal regulators had dealt with — very loud commercials.
A bill introduced in the General Law Committee and proposed by Sen. Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) seeks to address that issue. Senate Bill 232 would prohibit any streaming video service from transmitting commercials at a volume “that is louder than the volume established by the Federal Communications Commission” (FCC) for TV broadcast stations or cable TV providers.
If approved by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Ned Lamont, the bill would take effect on July 1, 2027.
In testimony on the bill during a public hearing held remotely via Zoom on Monday, Duff said that not only is the extreme volume of commercials on streaming services annoying, it has also created a new consumer issue.
He cited a 2023 study conducted by performance marketing firm Wunderkind, which found that “92% of viewers say ads have become more intrusive, with 91% of those viewers stating that they will not purchase from brands with these more intrusive ads.”
He also noted that while Congress in 2010 passed the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, or CALM Act, which mandates that broadcasters and cable operators use industry standards to keep ad volume consistent with programming, the law does not apply to streaming services.
“With so many Connecticut residents now ‘cutting the cord’ and using streaming services, it is only right that streaming services should have to abide by the intent of the CALM Act the same as cable television providers,” Duff said. “This bill fills the gap and ensures an even playing field, as well as an even viewing experience for all consumers.”
According to a quarterly report from AdWave.com, streaming now dominates TV viewing nationwide. It reported that nearly 81 million people “cut the cord” as of the fourth quarter of last year.
In addition, according to Nielsen’s December 2025 Gauge report, streaming now has 47.5% of TV viewing shares, more than broadcast TV (21.4%) and cable (20.2%) combined.
In response to a question from Rep. Gary Turco (D-Newington), Duff added that the bill would apply regardless of the electronic equipment — smart TV, mobile phone, tablet or computer — used to stream the service.
Connecticut would not be the first state to pass such a law. Last year, California approved a law that bans streaming services from transmitting audio of commercial advertisements louder than the video content they accompany. The law goes into effect on July 1.
Pennsylvania also has a bill currently under consideration by its legislature seeking to do the same thing.
Anna P. Lucey, executive vice president for legislative and external affairs for the New England Connectivity & Telecommunications Association (NECTA), submitted testimony in advance of Monday’s hearing stating her organization’s support for SB 232, while offering a way to clarify it.
NECTA is a regional trade association representing private cable broadband companies in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.
NECTA, Lucey said, asked the committee to replace the bill’s current definition of “streaming video service” with the definition found in California’s new law.
“The existing language in SB 232 is broad and captures ‘any service’ that makes ‘any content’ available over the internet,” she said.
California’s definition is tailored only to those entities that engage in the advertising practice the bill aims to address, she said.
While her organization supports “Connecticut’s efforts in mitigating the effect of excessive noise in streaming advertisements,” NECTA urged the committee to consider conforming the definition of streaming video service to that of California’s law.
One organization speaking against the bill was the state Department of Consumer Protection. Commissioner Bryan T. Cafferelli testified that the bill also would allow streaming services to apply for a waiver if the state law causes a “significant financial hardship.”
Cafferelli said DCP does not have “the expertise to evaluate either volume restrictions or waivers expressing significant financial hardship for streaming services,” and that the resources needed for such regulatory oversight are not included in the governor’s proposed budget.
He added, however, that DCP will work with proponents of the bill as it moves through the legislative process.
