HB 441, the Franchisee Protection Act, creates a new chapter in Utah law to protect franchisees from being required to operate on days when doing so would conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs. The bill defines key terms such as franchise agreement, franchisor, franchisee, original franchise agreement, and “religious day operation requirement,” and it excludes certain businesses already regulated under Utah’s automobile franchise and hotel statutes.
Under the bill, a franchisor generally may not unilaterally impose a religious-day operating requirement, force a franchisee to accept such a requirement in an amendment, or refuse to renew a franchise agreement solely because the franchisee does not comply. Those protections do not apply if the original agreement already includes the requirement, if the franchisee later agrees to it in a renewal or amendment, or if the parties agree to a new additional location that includes the requirement. The bill also makes the protections nontransferable.
Impact
The bill enacts Sections 13-75-101 and 13-75-201 of the Utah Code, adding a new franchisee religious-day-operation protection framework. It authorizes courts to award actual damages, attorney fees, costs, injunctive relief, and civil penalties of up to $10,000 for a first violation, $25,000 for a second violation within three years, and $50,000 for later violations within five years. The bill applies to franchisors and franchisees generally, but not to automobile franchises or hotel-related businesses covered elsewhere in Utah law.
Sentiment
The available voting record suggests broad support for the bill. It received favorable recommendations in both chambers, passed the House unanimously on third reading, and later passed the Senate with only two dissenting votes before the House concurred with a Senate amendment unanimously. No committee transcripts were provided, so the record shows strong legislative approval but does not include detailed debate or public testimony.
Contention
The main policy tension appears to be between protecting a franchisee’s religious exercise and preserving franchisor control over uniform operating requirements. The bill limits franchisors’ ability to require operation on certain days, but it also preserves exceptions where the requirement was already part of the original deal or later voluntarily accepted. The dissenting votes in the Senate suggest some concern remained, likely around contract rights, business consistency, or the scope of the religious accommodation, though the available record does not identify specific objections.