SB 81 revises Georgia’s motor vehicle franchise practices laws to add extensive protections for consumer data and dealer data in new vehicle sales, leasing, service, and related technology transactions. The bill limits how franchisors, manufacturers, distributors, affiliates, and third parties may access, use, disclose, or require access to consumer data obtained from dealers, and it requires written disclosures, data-sharing lists on request, indemnification for certain violations, and restrictions on forcing dealers to give direct access to dealer management systems. It also creates a new framework for “protected dealer data,” “authorized integrators,” secure open APIs, and standardized integration methods for dealer data systems vendors and third-party technology providers.
In addition to data protections, the bill updates several franchise law provisions affecting dealer-manufacturer relationships. It clarifies and expands what counts as unlawful conduct by franchisors, including certain allocation practices, adverse incentive actions, and billing back or withholding payments when dealer compliance would violate state law. It also requires disclosure of remotely initiated or updated vehicle functions and associated charges, and it revises the definition of activities that qualify as acting as a new motor vehicle dealer, especially in connection with online reservations, deposits, trade-in valuations, and electronic communications.
The bill’s impact on state law is broad: it amends multiple sections of Title 10 and one section of Title 40, creating new rights for dealers and new compliance obligations for manufacturers, franchisors, distributors, dealer data systems vendors, and third-party integrators. It limits contractual waivers, gives dealers stronger control over data access and integration, and preserves dealer authority to monitor, audit, back up, and transition data. It also preserves certain manufacturer rights for warranty, recall, marketing, and incentive administration, while making clear that the new data rules do not extend ownership rights in vehicle diagnostic data beyond what is needed for service and warranty work.
The overall sentiment reflected in the vote history appears strongly favorable. The bill passed the Senate 52-1 and the House 165-5, indicating broad bipartisan support and little recorded opposition. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no additional recorded debate to identify nuanced support or criticism beyond the voting margins.
The main points of contention likely center on the balance between dealer control and manufacturer/technology-provider access. Dealers benefit from stronger limits on forced system access, data overcharges, and restrictive integration terms, while manufacturers, franchisors, distributors, and vendor companies may view the bill as constraining data practices, incentive programs, and digital retailing models. The bill attempts to address those concerns by preserving certain operational uses of customer information and by allowing secure integration methods, but the tension between dealer autonomy, consumer data privacy, and manufacturer technology oversight remains the core policy issue.
SB 81 amends Georgia’s motor vehicle franchise statutes to create new protections for consumer and dealer data, regulate third-party access and integration with dealer data systems, and expand dealer rights in franchise and digital retail transactions. It affects franchisors, manufacturers, distributors, affiliates, dealer data systems vendors, authorized integrators, and new motor vehicle dealers by imposing disclosure, consent, indemnification, and integration requirements, while also revising unlawful franchise practices and the definition of dealer activity under state licensing law.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall, as shown by its strong passage margins in both chambers. The Senate approved it 52-1 and the House 165-5, suggesting broad agreement on the need to protect dealer and consumer data and to clarify franchise practices. With no committee transcript excerpts available, the record shows little visible public opposition in the materials provided.
The central dispute is between dealer data control and the interests of manufacturers, franchisors, distributors, and technology vendors. Dealers gain the right to restrict direct system access, demand secure APIs, and avoid data access overcharges, while manufacturers and vendors may be concerned about limits on integration, incentive program conditions, and data-sharing practices. Another likely point of tension is the bill’s expansion of what counts as dealer activity and its restrictions on remote retail practices, which could affect online sales models and reservation systems.