An Act to amend and reenact §§ 46.2-1529 and 46.2-1535 of the Code of Virginia, relating to motor vehicle dealers; dealer records and advertisements.
HB570 amends Virginia law governing motor vehicle dealers in two narrow areas: dealer recordkeeping and dealer advertising. First, it clarifies that dealer records may be preserved not only in original paper form but also in film, magnetic, optical, microfilm, microfiche, or other electronic media, so long as the records can be systematically retrieved. It also keeps the existing requirement that dealer records generally be maintained at the licensed premises, while preserving the Board’s ability to approve off-site storage for good cause and to approve computerized record-keeping systems.
Second, the bill updates the advertising rule for licensed dealers. When a dealer places an advertisement in a newspaper or publication and is not clearly identified by name, the abbreviation “VA DLR” must appear to show that the advertiser is a Virginia licensed dealer. The bill does not change the underlying licensing framework or dealer obligations beyond these record and disclosure requirements.
The bill amends §§ 46.2-1529 and 46.2-1535 of the Code of Virginia, affecting the regulatory requirements for licensed motor vehicle dealers. Its practical effect is to modernize acceptable record-retention formats, explicitly recognizing electronic storage and other media, while preserving the Department/Board’s oversight over where and how records are kept. It also reinforces consumer-facing advertising disclosure by requiring the “VA DLR” identifier in certain print advertisements, which may help distinguish licensed dealers from unlicensed sellers.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote debate, so there is no documented controversy in the provided materials. The bill appears to have been enacted as a relatively technical, administrative update, suggesting generally neutral or favorable sentiment. Its narrow scope and modernization of recordkeeping likely made it uncontroversial.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided materials. If any concerns existed, they would most likely have centered on compliance burdens for dealers, the practicality of maintaining records in approved electronic formats, or the advertising disclosure requirement for print ads. However, the absence of transcripts or vote details indicates no documented opposition in the supplied record.