Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Importers, and Distributors and Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealers
CS/HB 989 revises Florida’s motor vehicle dealer franchise laws governing manufacturer, importer, and distributor relationships with franchised dealers. The bill adds new grounds allowing a licensee to reject a dealer succession or transfer if the change would cause the licensee to violate a new market-concentration rule, and it clarifies the circumstances under which a manufacturer must repurchase inventory, parts, signs, tools, and related equipment when a franchise ends. It also expands protections for dealers by preserving existing rights to challenge improper refusals and by expressly allowing estate-planning transfers to trusts or similar entities when the controlling person or beneficiary meets the good-moral-character standard.
A major new provision applies to licensees that distribute 1,000 or more vehicles of a particular line-make in Florida during a 12-month period and send more than 33.33 percent of those vehicles to one dealer or to dealers under common ownership or control. Those licensees must have an established network of at least three independent motor vehicle dealers in the state, with an exception for line-makes that already had a licensed franchised dealer in Florida as of January 1, 2026, and for licensees not barred by existing law from owning or operating a dealer. The bill also amends transfer rules so that a manufacturer may reject a proposed franchise or equity transfer if it would directly place the manufacturer in violation of this new network requirement.
The bill’s impact is to strengthen Florida’s regulation of manufacturer-dealer relationships, especially by limiting concentration among affiliated dealers and by giving dealers additional leverage in succession, sale, and transfer disputes. It amends sections 320.64 and 320.643 of the Florida Statutes, which are central to dealer franchise protections, and it preserves the dealer’s ability to seek administrative relief through the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles when a rejection is alleged to be unlawful. The effective date is July 1, 2026.
Overall sentiment appears strongly favorable. The bill passed the House Industries & Professional Activities Subcommittee 16-1, the House Commerce Committee 22-1, and the House floor 106-1, indicating broad bipartisan support and little organized opposition in the recorded votes. The near-unanimous votes suggest lawmakers viewed the measure as a targeted update to dealer franchise law rather than a controversial overhaul.
The main point of contention is the new concentration and network requirement, which could affect manufacturers that rely heavily on a small number of dealers or dealer groups. Supporters likely see the provision as promoting independent dealer representation and preventing overconcentration, while opponents or affected manufacturers may view it as restricting business flexibility and complicating ownership succession or transfer transactions. A secondary issue is the bill’s expansion of manufacturer obligations and limits on rejecting transfers, though the text preserves rejection rights tied to moral character, financial qualifications, and compliance with the new network rule.
The bill amends Florida Statutes sections 320.64 and 320.643 to add a new basis for rejecting dealer succession and franchise or equity transfers when the transaction would cause a manufacturer, importer, or distributor to violate a new market-share and dealer-network requirement. It also clarifies repurchase obligations after franchise termination by specifying inventory, parts, signs, tools, equipment, and handling costs subject to repurchase. The measure affects motor vehicle manufacturers, importers, distributors, franchised dealers, heirs, devisees, transferees, and dealer groups with common ownership or control, and it preserves administrative remedies for dealers challenging improper rejections.
The recorded vote history shows overwhelming support for the bill at every stage, with only one dissenting vote in each of the three recorded votes. That pattern suggests the bill was broadly viewed as a pro-dealer, technical, and policy-focused update to existing franchise law. No committee transcript was provided, but the voting record indicates little visible controversy in the legislative process.
The principal controversy is the new requirement that certain high-volume licensees maintain at least three independent dealers in Florida and the related rule limiting how much of a line-make can be concentrated in one dealer or commonly controlled dealer group. Manufacturers and large dealer groups may object that this constrains distribution strategies and ownership consolidation, while independent dealers are likely to support it as a safeguard against market dominance. Another potential point of contention is the bill’s expanded ability for dealers to challenge rejected transfers and successions, although the bill still preserves manufacturer protections based on moral character, financial qualifications, public interest, and compliance with the new concentration rule.