Motor Vehicle Manufacturers and Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealers:
HB 429 revises Florida’s motor vehicle dealer franchise laws to place additional limits on how motor vehicle manufacturers and other licensees can evaluate, discipline, or terminate franchised dealers. The bill prohibits an applicant, licensee, or common entity from using sales or service performance criteria that are unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary, inequitable, or based on incomplete local and regional data. It also requires that performance criteria be made available in writing and, upon request, explained in detail, including how they were designed, calculated, established, and uniformly applied.
The bill also adds a new anti-retaliation protection for dealers. Manufacturers and related entities may not take retaliatory action against a dealer for asserting rights under Florida’s motor vehicle dealer statutes, alleging a violation of those statutes, or participating in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing. In addition, the bill revises the standards for when a franchise discontinuation, cancellation, nonrenewal, modification, or replacement is considered unfair, and it requires a 180-day opportunity to cure alleged sales or service performance failures before a termination-related notice may be sent in those cases.
HB 429 amends sections 320.64 and 320.641, Florida Statutes, which govern grounds for denial, suspension, or revocation of licenses for motor vehicle manufacturers and related licensees, and the rules for discontinuing or changing franchise agreements. The bill strengthens statutory protections for franchised motor vehicle dealers by expanding the types of manufacturer conduct that can trigger liability and remedies under sections 320.695 and 320.697, including unfair performance metrics and retaliation. It also shifts the burden of proof to the applicant or licensee to show that a challenged discontinuation, cancellation, nonrenewal, modification, or replacement is fair and not prohibited. The act takes effect July 1, 2025.
The available context suggests the bill was enacted without recorded committee debate or vote detail in the provided materials, but its final passage and chaptering indicate legislative support. The measure appears to have been framed as a dealer-protection bill, with the overall tone favoring greater transparency, fairness, and procedural safeguards for franchised motor vehicle dealers in their dealings with manufacturers. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided context limits the ability to identify specific floor or committee sentiment beyond the enacted result.
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s restrictions on manufacturer discretion. Motor vehicle manufacturers and affiliated entities may view the new standards for performance measurement as too rigid, especially the requirements that criteria be locally and regionally grounded, statistically valid if survey-based, and fully disclosed in writing. Dealers, by contrast, are the beneficiaries of the bill’s protections and would likely support the anti-retaliation provisions and the expanded grounds for challenging franchise terminations or modifications. Another likely dispute is the 180-day cure period, which could be seen by manufacturers as delaying enforcement of franchise standards, while dealers would see it as a necessary safeguard against abrupt adverse action.