SB 155

Bill Subjects

Abstract

Existing law establishes the New Motor Vehicle Board in the Department of Motor Vehicles, and requires the board to hear and decide certain protests presented by a motor vehicle franchisee. Existing law prescribes procedures to be followed by franchisors, franchisees, and the board regarding claims for warranty reimbursement or incentive compensation. Existing law authorizes franchisors to conduct audits of franchisee warranty records and incentive records on a reasonable basis, and authorizes a franchisor to audit the franchisee's incentive records for 18 months, and warranty records for 12 months, after a claim is paid or credit issued. Existing law prohibits the disapproval of franchisee claims except for good cause, as specified, and requires that a notice of disapproval state the specific grounds upon which the disapproval is based. Existing law gives a franchisee one year from receipt of the notice of disapproval of an incentive compensation payment to appeal the disapproval to the franchisor and file a protest with the board. This bill would revise these provisions to require, among other things, the franchisor to provide the franchisee with the specific grounds upon which any previously approved claims are disapproved following an audit, and to prohibit a previously approved claim from being charged back to the franchisee except under certain circumstances, including when the claim is false or fraudulent. The bill would require the franchisor to provide a reasonable appeal process to allow the franchisee to respond to any disapproval with additional supporting documentation or information rebutting the disapproval or to cure noncompliance, as provided. The bill would authorize the audit of a franchisee's incentive and warranty records for 9 months after a claim is paid or credit is issued, as specified. The bill would give a franchisee 6 months from the date of receipt of a specified written notice to file a protest with the board, and would specify that in the protest proceeding the franchisor has the burden of proof. Existing law requires every vehicle franchisor to properly fulfill every warranty agreement made by it and adequately and fairly compensate each of its franchisees for labor and parts used to fulfill that warranty when the franchisee has fulfilled warranty obligations of repair and servicing. Existing law also requires the franchisor to file a copy of its warranty reimbursement schedule or formula with the board, and requires the board to determine the reasonableness of the warranty reimbursement schedule or formula if the franchisee files a notice of protest with the board. This bill would additionally require a franchisor to adequately and fairly compensate each of its franchisees for labor and parts used to provide diagnostic services under a warranty, and would prohibit a franchisor from replacing, modifying, or supplementing a warranty reimbursement schedule to impose a fixed percentage or other reduction in the time and compensation allowed for warranty repairs not attributable to a specific repair. The bill would also require, if the board determines that the warranty reimbursement schedule or formula fails to provide adequate compensation, the franchisor to correct the failure by amending or replacing the warranty reimbursement schedule and implementing the correction as to all franchisees within 30 days after receipt of the board's order. Existing law generally requires a manufacturer branch, remanufacturer, remanufacturer branch, distributor, distributor branch, transporter, or dealer of vehicles to be licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Under existing law, it is unlawful for a manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor, or distributor branch to engage in specified practices, including requiring a dealer to make a material alteration, expansion, or addition to any dealership facility, unless the required alteration, expansion, or addition is reasonable in light of all existing circumstances, including economic conditions. This bill would prohibit a required facility alteration, expansion, or addition from being deemed reasonable if it requires that the dealer purchase goods or services from a specific vendor if goods or services of a substantially similar kind, quality, and general design concept are available from another vendor, except as specified. The bill would also prohibit the establishment or maintenance of a performance standard, sales objective, or program for measuring a dealer's sales, service, or customer service performance that may materially affect the dealer, including, but not limited to, the dealer's right to payment under any incentive or reimbursement program or establishment of working capital requirements, unless certain requirements are satisfied. The bill would also prohibit a manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor, or distributor branch from taking or threatening to take any adverse action against a dealer pursuant to a published export or sale-for-resale prohibition because the dealer sold or leased a vehicle to a customer who either exported the vehicle to a foreign country or resold the vehicle, unless the dealer was provided an export or sale-for-resale prohibition policy, in writing, prior to the sale or lease and the dealer knew or should have known of the customer's intent to export or resell the vehicle, as specified. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.