BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1178 Page 1 CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS AB 1178 (Achadjian) As Amended September 4, 2015 Majority vote -------------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |80-0 |(June 4, 2015) |SENATE: |40-0 |(September 9, | | | | | | |2015) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: TRANS. SUMMARY: Provides that a vehicle manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor, or distributor branch cannot take any adverse action against a dealer relative to an export or sale-for-resale prohibition if the dealer causes the vehicle to be registered in a state and collects or causes to be collected any applicable sale or use tax due to the state, as specified. The Senate amendments: 1)Make declarations and findings related to motor vehicle franchisor and franchisee relationships. 2)Provide that a manufacturer, as specified, is prohibited from taking adverse action against a dealer if the manufacturer fails to provide a dealer with their export or sale-for-resale AB 1178 Page 2 prohibition policy in writing at least 48 hours prior to the vehicle being sold. 3)Change the required notification period that a manufacturer, as specified, must provide a dealer with an exporter list from five days to 48 hours. 4)Establish procedures for the New Motor Vehicle Board (Board) to hear export and sale-for-resale prohibition hearings presented by an association, as specified. Provides a sunset of January 1, 2019 for the Board's authority to hear protests presented by an association. 5)Provide that in any proceeding where adverse action is being challenged, the manufacturer, as specified, is required to have the burden of proof that a dealer was in violation of an export or sale-for-resale prohibition policy, as specified. 6)Specify that a manufacturer's export or sale-for-resale policy is prohibited from including provisions that require a dealer from asking a customer questions pertaining to the customer's intent, identity, or financial ability to purchase the vehicle, as specified. Further specifies that the policy is required to include a provision stating the dealer's rebuttable presumption if the dealer submits the proper documentation to register the vehicle and collects applicable taxes, as specified. 7)Double-joins this bill with AB 759 (Linder) of the current legislative session to avoid chaptering out conflicts. 8)Make technical, nonsubstantive conforming changes. EXISTING LAW: AB 1178 Page 3 1)Charges the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) with licensing and regulating dealers, manufacturers, and distributors of motor vehicles who conduct business in California. 2)Makes it unlawful for a vehicle manufacturer or distributor to take specified actions against a vehicle dealer or franchisee. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs. COMMENTS: SB 155 (Padilla), Chapter 512, Statutes of 2013, made a number of changes to the statutory framework regulating the relationship between vehicle manufacturers and dealers including changes to their claims and appeals process, performance standards, and vehicle export polices. Specifically, SB 155 added provisions that prohibited a vehicle manufacturer or distributor from taking or threatening to take any adverse action against a dealer who sold a vehicle to a buyer who then either exported the vehicle to another country or resold the vehicle unless the manufacturer's export or sale-for-resale prohibition policy was provided to the dealer in writing prior to the sale or lease and the dealer knew or reasonably should have known of the customer's intent to export or resell the vehicle. SB 155 further specified that the dealer processing a vehicle's registration or collecting taxes on the sold vehicle creates a rebuttable presumption that the dealer did not have reason to know of the consumer's intent. According to the sponsor, last year a specific manufacturer adopted several export-dealer policies and sent updated notifications to franchise dealers of those policy changes. Both policies established strict liability provisions for dealers who sold these particular types of vehicles that were ultimately exported. Additionally these policies excluded the rebuttable presumption provisions established under SB 155. Thus, these franchise dealers could be subject to penalties if a AB 1178 Page 4 vehicle was exported even if the franchise dealer processed the vehicle's registration and collected relevant taxes. This bill is the latest attempt to address issues between vehicle manufacturers and franchise dealers related to vehicle export and resale policies by clarifying that a vehicle manufacturer is prohibited from taking any adverse action against a dealer once the vehicle's registration and relevant taxes are processed unless certain conditions are met. The author notes that this bill will "strengthen California's law by prohibiting manufacturers from taking negative actions against a dealer when a vehicle is exported or resold if the dealer collects sales tax and registers the vehicle in California." Analysis Prepared by: Manny Leon / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0002293