Act Promoting Pet Equity, Treatment and Safety (PETS Act) (Massachusetts)

The Animal Legal Defense Fund supports this bill.

Introduction Date: March 12, 2026

The Massachusetts legislature is considering An Act Promoting Pet Equity, Treatment and Safety (S. 3028), also known as the PETS Act, which aims to prevent the sale of animals from puppy mills in pet stores, halt cruel and unnecessary animal cosmetics testing, promote keeping companion animals together with their families in public housing, and support spay/neuter and vaccination services for homeless dogs and cats and low-income families. supporting spay/neuter and vaccination services for homeless dogs and cats and low-income families. 

The PETS Act passed the Senate unanimously in March 2026, and this omnibus bill is a combination of several formerly standalone bills that represent nearly a decade of work by compassionate legislators and advocates. The bill has been referred to the House for consideration. 

If enacted, provisions of the PETS Act would: 

• Establish a retail sales ban for dogs and cats, which prohibits a pet shop from selling puppies or kittens from mills.
  • Other states: Similar legislation has passed in Vermont, California, Maine, Maryland, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington. Numerous local communities in the Commonwealth have similar local laws: Arlington, Attleboro, Beverly, Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Holliston, Lenox, Lexington, Marshfield, North Adams, North Andover, Pittsfield, Plymouth, Springfield, and Stoneham, some of which cover a broader set of types of animals such as rabbits, guinea pigs, and other small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, arachnids, and fish.
  • Why is this important? Pet shops typically acquire their dogs and cats from inhumane commercial breeding facilities known as “puppy mills” or “kitten mills.” These mills are known for their inhumane treatment of animals, often keeping them in filthy, cramped cages without proper care. Pet shops are a primary sales outlet for these mills because they hide the cruelty behind their operations from unsuspecting consumers. This legislation protects animals as well as consumers from the heartache and large veterinary bills often associated with purchasing sick mill-bred puppies, while still ensuring that pet shops may partner with local shelters and rescues to make animals available for adoption in-store.

• Create an animal testing ban for cosmetics and certain other household products when alternative product test methods are available.
  • Other states: California, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia.
  • Why is this important? Tens of thousands of animals every year are subjected to painful tests in which, for example, harsh chemicals are applied to their eyes and skin. Mice and rats, which make up 95% of the animals used in science, are excluded from even the minimal protections provided under the federal Animal Welfare Act. And these animal test results are often unreliable predictors of human outcomes — different species, and even different sexes or sub-species, can react differently to the same substances — whereas alternative methods are more likely to provide accurate, human-relevant results that are generated more quickly and cost less. This legislation requires that manufacturers and testing laboratories in Massachusetts use modern, non-animal scientific protocols to assess the safety of products such as household cleaners, industrial chemicals, pesticides, and cosmetics, when such alternative methods are available. It would not, however, impact testing done for medical research, including the testing of pharmaceutical products and medical devices.

• Prohibit breed discrimination by homeowners’ and renters’ insurance companies.
  • Other states: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. Vermont and Connecticut have desk-drawer rules prohibiting blanket exclusions of entire canine breeds, and the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services issued a bulletin in 2019 interpreting the state’s Essential Insurance Act as not allowing companies to deny, cancel, or decline to renew coverage based on the insured’s possession of a dog.
  • Why is this important? The idea of basing policies on a dog’s breed is an outdated practice that is unsupported by current research on dog behavior. Massachusetts lawmakers have affirmed that a dog’s individual behavior, not breed, should guide policy — enacting a 2012 ban on municipal breed discrimination and a 2024 ban on breed discrimination in evaluating potential adoptive or foster homes for children.   

• Establish more companion-animal-inclusive public housing by prohibiting state-aided housing facilities from banning companion animals outright; discriminating based on breed, size, weight or appearance; requiring declawing; or evicting compliant tenants solely because they have a companion animal. Additionally, it would require further study by the state’s housing executive office — and potential recommendations — related to the prevalence and effects of pet-related fees charged to residents of state-aided and privately-owned rental housing.
  • Other states: Colorado; Washington, D.C.; Texas; Florida; California; Illinois; and Nevada have in recent years passed similar legislation expanding or improving pet-inclusive housing. [*include a footnote with state-specific details on animal inclusive housing legislation, listed on the following page — the bulleted list that starts with “Colorado (2025)” and ends with “Nevada (2019”]
  • Why is this important? In Massachusetts, housing is the number-one reason for the surrender of animals. Approximately 36% of animals surrendered to Massachusetts animal shelters are given up because of housing issues. When housing is a barrier, the most frequently cited reasons for animal relinquishment are restrictions on the number of animals allowed and breed-specific dog restrictions. This legislation sets consistent, reasonable pet policy standards in all state-aided public housing, making meaningful progress toward fair and equitable access to truly pet-inclusive housing for residents of every income level and family situation, in every community. Requiring consistency among already-limited housing options will make it significantly easier for tenants to navigate the process of finding housing that meets their family’s needs. 

• • • Colorado (2025): Requires housing developments financed by the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to keep 2 pets without restrictions on breed or weight and subject to pet fee/deposit laws. (Addresses breed-specific rules) [C.R.S. 24-32-735]; Colorado (2023): Capped pet rent at $35/month or 1.5% of monthly rent (whichever is greater). Capped refundable pet deposits at $300. [C.R.S. 38-12-106] 

• • • District of Columbia (2024): Limits the amount of fees/deposits that a housing provider may charge a tenant for owning a common household pet, capping pet-related security deposits at 15% of one month’s rent and restricting additional pet rent to 1% of the first month’s rent. Prohibits housing providers from imposing restrictions or charging different fees based on a pet’s breed, size or weight for leases beginning after 10/1/26. [D.C. ACT 25-702] 

• • • Texas (2023): Requires a housing authority policy permitting tenant ownership of a pet to comply with all applicable county or municipal restrictions on dangerous dogs imposed under Section 822.047 (Local Regulation of Dangerous Dogs), Health and Safety Code. (Addresses breed-specific rules) [Chapter 392 (§) 392.0555] 

• • • Florida (2023): Expanded the ban on breed-specific dog laws to include size and weight restrictions. Removed the grandfather exception that had previously allowed pre1990 ordinances (e.g., in MiamiDade County and the City of Sunrise) to continue. Applied the same restrictions to public housing policies, ensuring they too cannot use breed, size, or weight as the basis for regulation.  (Addresses breed-specific rules) [Fla. Stat. § 767.14] 

• • • California (2022): Updates the Pet Friendly Housing Act of 2017, which required new housing developments financed by Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to authorize a resident to own or otherwise maintain one or more common household pets within the resident’s dwelling unit, subject to existing laws. The 2022 law expands to require new Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) funded projects to include pet-friendly policies. Additionally, this law prohibits applicable HCD and TCAC funded projects from placing limits on pet breeds and pet weight, and prohibits monthly pet fees to be imposed for the ownership or maintenance of a common household pet in those projects. (Addresses breed-specific rules) [Cal. Health & Safety Code § 50466] 

• • • Illinois (2021): A multifamily rental housing unit that is 500 square feet or larger and has been acquired, constructed, or rehabilitated with any money from the Illinois Affordable Housing Trust Fund after January 1, 2022 and that was designated for affordable housing for low and very low-income families must allow a tenant to keep at least 2 cats or one dog that weighs under 50 pounds regardless of breed or height in accordance with any applicable State laws. (Addresses breed-specific rules) [Public Act 102-0283] 

• • • Nevada (2019): Pets must be allowed in housing acquired, constructed, or rehabilitated with money from the Account for Low-Income Housing. [NV Rev Stat § 319.530]

• Ensure that certain animal-related fines collected by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) are directed toward helping animals through the Mass Animal Fund.

• • Why is this important? Many animals across the Commonwealth are going unserved, lacking critical health services, with wait times to get help over four months. The Massachusetts Animal Fund provides Massachusetts cats and dogs with no-cost spay/neuter and vaccinations. It provides funds to help families who cannot afford critical health services for their animals, and to animals who are in municipal shelters across the state. The Fund also conducts training for Animal Control Officers, which help create more effective enforcement of animal control laws. This legislation would redirect certain monies coming from administrative fines related to certain animal health violations to the Fund, providing resources that would help expedite these much-needed services, benefiting animals as well as Massachusetts families and communities. 

Coalition Support: The Animal Legal Defense Fund is working in coalition with MSPCA-Angell, Animal Rescue League of Boston, and Humane World for Animals.

​​For more information about animal protection legislation​ in Massachusetts ​and opportunities to take action for animals, visit aldf.org/massachusetts.