In entities generally, providing for the offense of false, deceptive or misleading names; and imposing a penalty.
SB 931 amends Pennsylvania’s business entity law in Title 15 to create a new offense for using false, deceptive, or misleading names. The bill prohibits an entity doing business in the Commonwealth from using a fictitious name, proper name, domain name, electronic identifier, symbol, or similar device that is likely to confuse the public into thinking the entity is affiliated with, approved by, or connected to the Commonwealth, a municipality, or one of their agencies, boards, commissions, or other governmental bodies. It also bars names or branding that mimic or suggest governmental origin or endorsement.
The bill includes a narrow exception for entities that have advance written authorization from the relevant government body. Even then, the authorization must be reported within 10 days to the majority and minority chairs of the Senate and House State Government Committees. SB 931 would take effect 60 days after enactment and would add a new section to Title 15 governing corporate and unincorporated associations.
SB 931 would add a new criminal provision to Pennsylvania’s corporations and unincorporated associations law, expanding Title 15 with a prohibition on misleading government-like business names and related branding. A violation, or conspiracy to violate, would be a third-degree felony punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $15,000, or both. The bill would affect entities operating in Pennsylvania, including those using trade names, fictitious names, websites, social media, or domain names that could imply government affiliation or endorsement, and it would impose a disclaimer-based defense for certain public-facing materials.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at preventing public confusion and misuse of government identity, suggesting a consumer-protection and anti-fraud rationale. The inclusion of a felony penalty indicates the sponsors view the conduct as serious and deserving of strong deterrence.
The main point of potential contention is the breadth and severity of the enforcement scheme. Critics could question whether the bill’s language about terms that are “false, deceptive or misleading” or “likely to cause confusion” is broad enough to chill legitimate business naming, parody, advocacy, or descriptive uses. Another likely issue is the felony classification and substantial maximum penalty, which may be viewed as harsh for naming or branding violations. Supporters would likely emphasize the need to stop entities from impersonating or implying government affiliation, especially in online and electronic contexts.