HB3583 creates the Motor Fuel Minimum Markup Act, a new Illinois law aimed at restricting below-cost sales of gasoline and other motor fuel when those sales are used as “loss leaders.” The bill makes it unlawful for a retailer, wholesaler, or refiner to sell or offer to sell motor fuel below a defined cost threshold if the purpose or effect is to induce purchases of other merchandise or divert trade from a competitor. It also establishes detailed formulas for calculating the relevant cost for retailers, wholesalers, and refiners, using invoice cost, replacement cost, transportation and tax costs, and benchmark pricing references such as OPIS and average posted terminal prices.
The bill includes notice requirements for good-faith price reductions made to meet a competitor’s price. A seller that lowers fuel prices below the statutory threshold to match a competitor must notify the Attorney General by the close of business the same day, and failure to do so creates a rebuttable presumption that the price cut was not made to meet competition. The measure also provides exceptions for certain wholesale transactions and authorizes the Attorney General to adopt rules to administer the Act.
Impact
HB3583 would add a new section to Illinois business and consumer protection law and amend the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act to make violations of the new fuel-markup rules independently enforceable as consumer fraud. In practical terms, it would regulate pricing practices by fuel retailers, wholesalers, and refiners, potentially limiting promotional fuel discounts and changing how gas stations and vertically integrated fuel sellers price motor fuel. Enforcement authority, remedies, and penalties available under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act would apply, giving the Attorney General direct enforcement power.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or vote history to indicate formal support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to protect competition and prevent predatory pricing, suggesting a consumer- and small-business-protection rationale. At the same time, the detailed pricing formulas and reporting requirements indicate a regulatory approach that would likely draw scrutiny from fuel retailers and wholesalers affected by the restrictions.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s prohibition on below-cost fuel sales, the complexity of the cost calculations, and the Attorney General notice requirement. Retailers, wholesalers, and refiners may argue that the law would limit legitimate price competition, promotional pricing, and flexible responses to market conditions, while supporters would likely contend that it prevents unfair loss-leader tactics and predatory diversion of trade. The use of OPIS-based benchmarks, the presumption created by failure to notify the Attorney General, and the broad enforcement link to consumer fraud law are the most likely pressure points.