Motor Vehicle Manufacturers and Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealers
This bill revises Florida’s motor vehicle franchise law as it applies to manufacturers, distributors, and other licensees dealing with franchised motor vehicle dealers. It limits the ability of an applicant, licensee, or related common entity to use sales or service performance metrics against dealers unless those metrics are fair, reasonable, non-arbitrary, and based on relevant local and regional data. If performance standards rely on surveys, the bill requires a statistically significant and valid random sample. It also requires manufacturers to provide dealers, on request, a written explanation of how performance criteria were designed, calculated, established, and uniformly applied.
The bill further prohibits retaliation against a dealer for exercising rights under Florida’s motor vehicle dealer statutes, alleging a violation, or participating in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing. It also revises the standards for when a franchise discontinuation, cancellation, nonrenewal, modification, or replacement is considered unfair, including adding a 180-day opportunity to cure alleged sales or service performance failures before notice of discontinuation, cancellation, or nonrenewal may be sent in those cases. The act takes effect July 1, 2025.
The bill amends sections 320.64 and 320.641, Florida Statutes, strengthening statutory protections for franchised motor vehicle dealers and expanding the grounds on which manufacturers’ actions may be challenged as unfair or prohibited. It increases disclosure obligations for performance-measurement systems, adds anti-retaliation protections, and places the burden on the applicant or licensee to prove that a challenged franchise action is fair and lawful. Dealers who show a likely adverse pecuniary effect may pursue existing remedies under sections 320.695 and 320.697.
The bill appears to have broad support in the Legislature, passing every recorded committee and floor vote overwhelmingly and without opposition on the final House and Senate readings. The lone recorded dissent came in the earliest subcommittee vote, suggesting some initial concern but no sustained organized resistance as the bill advanced. Overall, the voting history indicates a strong consensus in favor of the measure.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s restrictions on manufacturer discretion and its expansion of dealer protections. Manufacturers and affiliated entities may view the new standards for performance metrics, mandatory written disclosures, anti-retaliation provisions, and the 180-day cure period as limiting their ability to manage franchise networks and enforce brand standards. Dealers, by contrast, are the clear beneficiaries and would support the bill as a safeguard against arbitrary scoring, retaliatory conduct, and unfair termination or modification of franchise agreements.