Please refer to Governing Statutes for more information. “Not specified” indicates that an issue is not addressed specifically in the particular statutes. Please send any updates to editors@dealernews.com
ALABAMA – A performance standard, sales objective, or program for measuring dealership performance that may have a material effect on a dealer, including the dealer’s right to payment under any incentive or reimbursement program, shall be fair, reasonable, equitable, and based on accurate information.
ALASKA – Not specified
ARIZONA – Provides for “fair, reasonable and equitable vehicle allocation.”
ARKANSAS – Not specified
CALIFORNIA – Not specified
COLORADO – Manufacturer may not “discriminate between or refuse to offer to its same line-make franchised dealers all models manufactured for that line-make based upon unreasonable sales and service standards” and must “make practically available an incentive, rebate, bonus, or other similar benefit to a powersports vehicle dealer that is offered to another powersports vehicle dealer of the same line-make within this state”
CONNECTICUT – Must “disclose to any dealer, handling the same line make, the system of allocation, including, but not limited to, a complete breakdown by model, color, equipment and other items or terms, a concise listing of dealerships and an explanation of the derivation of the allocation system, including its mathematical formula in a clear and comprehensible form”
DELAWARE – Not specified
FLORIDA – If dealer has renovated to OEM specs, for 10 years the dealer will not be eligible for any benefit under the revised or new program but shall remain entitled to all benefits under the prior program, plus any increase in benefits between the prior and revised or new programs.
GEORGIA – Not specified
HAWAII – Manufacturer may not “Implement or establish a system of motor vehicle allocation or distribution to one or more of its dealers that is unfair, inequitable, or unreasonably discriminatory.” As used in this paragraph, “unfair” includes “without limitation, requiring a dealer to accept new vehicles not ordered by the dealer or the refusal or failure to offer to any dealer all models offered to its other same line-make dealers in the state.”
IDAHO – Not specified
ILLINOIS – Manufacturer may not “adopt, change, establish or implement a plan or system for the allocation and distribution of new motor vehicles to motor vehicle dealers which is arbitrary or capricious or to modify an existing plan so as to cause the same to be arbitrary or capricious.”
INDIANA – Not specified
IOWA – Not specified
KANSAS – Not specified
KENTUCKY – Not specified
LOUISIANA – Manufacturer may not “unreasonably discriminate among competing, similarly situated, same-line-make dealers in the sales of motorcycles or all-terrain vehicles, in the availability of motorcycles or all-terrain vehicles, in the terms of incentive programs or sales promotion plans, or in other similar programs.”
MAINE – Not specified
MARYLAND – Not specified
MASSACHUSETTS – Allocations may not be “arbitrary or unfair”; manufacturers may set aside up to 15 percent of vehicle allocation in a pool if conditions are met.
MICHIGAN – “A manufacturer shall not… adopt, change, establish, or implement a plan or system for the allocation and distribution of new motor vehicles to new motor vehicle dealers that is arbitrary or capricious or based on unreasonable sales and service standards, or modify an existing plan or system that causes the plan or system to be arbitrary or capricious or based on unreasonable sales and service standards.”
MINNESOTA – Not specified
MISSISSIPPI – Not specified
MISSOURI – Not specified
MONTANA – Manufacturer may not use “a method of allocating, scheduling, or delivering new motorsports vehicles, parts, or accessories to its motorsports dealers that is not fair, reasonable, and equitable. Upon the request of a motorsports dealer, a motorsports manufacturer shall disclose in writing the method by which new motorsports vehicles, parts, and accessories are allocated, scheduled, or delivered to its motorsports dealers handling the same line or make of vehicles.” Manufacturer may not “deny a motorsports dealer the right of lawfully selling or offering to sell motorsports vehicles to customers who reside in another country; require a motorsports dealer to accept delivery of a number or percentage of motorsport vehicles during a specific period of a sales order; [or] require a motorsports dealer to maintain an inventory in excess of the inventory needed for a period of 90 days.”
NEBRASKA – Manufacturer may not “refuse to disclose to a new motor vehicle dealer the method and manner of distribution of new motor vehicles by the manufacturer or distributor or, if a line-make is allocated among new motor vehicle dealers, refuse to disclose to any new motor vehicle dealer that handles the same line-make the system of allocation, including, but not limited to, a complete breakdown by model, and a concise listing of dealerships with an explanation of the derivation of the allocation system, including its mathematical formula in a clear and comprehensible form.”
NEVADA – Not specified
NEW HAMPSHIRE – Manufacturer may not “adopt or put into effect a method for the allocation, scheduling or delivery of new vehicles, parts or accessories to its dealers that is not fair, reasonable and equitable or change an existing method so as to be unfair, unreasonable or inequitable. Upon the request of a dealer, a manufacturer, importer or distributor shall disclose in writing to the dealer the method by which new vehicles, parts and accessories are allocated, scheduled or delivered to its dealers handling the same line or make of vehicles.” “If a manufacturer uses sales effective measurements to allocate vehicles, evaluate a franchisee, or determine incentives, the manufacturer, upon the written request of one of its franchisees, shall, within 30 days, provide the vehicle identification numbers that the manufacturer possessed and used in the measurements during the time period requested by the dealer.”
NEW JERSEY – Not specified
NEW MEXICO – Not specified
NEW YORK – Manufacturer may not use an unreasonable, arbitrary or unfair sales or other performance standard in determining a franchised motor vehicle dealer’s compliance with a franchise agreement. Before applying any sales, service or other performance standard to a franchised motor vehicle dealer, a franchisor shall communicate the performance standard in writing in a clear and concise manner.
NORTH CAROLINA – Not specified
NORTH DAKOTA – Not specified
OHIO – Manufacturer may not “discriminate against any franchisee in the allocation or through the withholding from delivery of certain models of motor vehicles ordered by a franchisee out of the ordinary course of business… Unfairly change or amend unilaterally a franchisee’s allotment of motor vehicles or quota, sales expectancy, sales penetration, or geographic area of responsibility without reasonable cause. Prior to changing or amending a franchisee’s geographic area of responsibility, the franchisor shall give the franchisee, other than a franchisee who deals in recreational vehicles, a reasonable opportunity to present relevant evidence demonstrating the effect of local market conditions that may materially and adversely affect the franchisee’s proposed new geographic area of responsibility.”
OKLAHOMA – Not specified
OREGON – Not specified
PENNSYLVANIA – OEM may not “operate a system for the allocation of new vehicles which is not reasonable or fair to a new vehicle dealer. Upon the written request of any of its new vehicle dealers, a manufacturer or distributor shall disclose to the new vehicle dealer the method on which new vehicles are allocated among the new vehicle dealers of the same line-make. The manufacturer [or] distributor has the burden of establishing the fairness of its allocation.”
RHODE ISLAND – Manufacturer may not “use or consider the performance of a motor vehicle dealer relating to the sale of the manufacturer’s vehicles or the motor vehicle dealer’s ability to satisfy any minimum sales or market share quota or responsibility relating to the sale of the manufacturer’s new vehicles in determining: (i) The motor vehicle dealer’s eligibility to purchase program, certified, or other used motor vehicles from the manufacturer; (ii) The volume, type, or model of program, certified, or other used motor vehicles that a motor vehicle dealer is eligible to purchase from the manufacturer; (iii) The price of any program, certified, or other used motor vehicle that the dealer is eligible to purchase from the manufacturer; or (iv) The availability or amount of any discount, credit, rebate, or sales incentive that the dealer is eligible to receive from the manufacturer for the purchase of any program, certified, or other used motor vehicle offered for sale by the manufacturer.”
SOUTH CAROLINA – Not specified
SOUTH DAKOTA – Not specified
TENNESSEE – Not specified
TEXAS – Manufacturer “may not treat franchised dealers of the same line-make differently as a result of the application of a formula or other computation or process intended to gauge the performance of a dealership or otherwise enforce standards or guidelines applicable to its franchised dealers in the sale of motor vehicles if, in the application of the standards or guidelines, the franchised dealers are treated unfairly or inequitably in the sale of a motor vehicle owned by the manufacturer or distributor.”
UTAH – Manufacturer may not “adopt, change, establish, modify, or implement a plan or system for the allocation, scheduling, or delivery of new powersport vehicles, parts, or accessories to its franchisees so that the plan or system is not fair, reasonable, and equitable.” “Upon the written request of any franchisee, a franchisor shall disclose in writing to the franchisee the basis on which new powersport vehicles, parts, and accessories are allocated, scheduled, and delivered among the franchisor’s dealers of the same line-make.”
VERMONT – Manufacturer must “disclose to any new motor vehicle dealer, handling the same line-make, the manner and mode of distribution of that line-make within the State.”
VIRGINIA – Not specified
WASHINGTON – Manufacturer may not “discriminate between dealers by adopting a method, or changing an existing method, for the allocation, scheduling, or delivery of new motorsports vehicles, parts, or accessories to its dealers that is not fair, reasonable, and equitable. Upon the request of a dealer, a manufacturer shall disclose in writing to the dealer the method by which new motorsports vehicles, parts, and accessories are allocated, scheduled, or delivered to its dealers handling the same line or make of vehicles.”
WEST VIRGINIA – Manufacturer must disclose “the method and manner of distribution of new motor vehicles by the manufacturer or distributor, including any numerical calculation or formula used, nationally or within the dealer’s market, to make the allocations within thirty days of a request. Any information or documentation provided by the manufacturer may be subject to a reasonable confidentiality agreement”
WISCONSIN – No manufacturer, importer or distributor shall adopt, change, establish or implement a plan or system for the allocation, scheduling or delivery of new motor vehicles, parts or accessories to its motor vehicle dealers that is not fair, reasonable and equitable or modify an existing plan or system so as to cause the plan or system to be unreasonable, unfair or inequitable. Upon the request of any dealer franchised by it, a manufacturer, importer or distributor shall disclose in writing to the dealer the basis upon which new motor vehicles, parts and accessories are allocated, scheduled and delivered among the manufacturer’s, importer’s or distributor’s dealers of the same line make.
WYOMING – Not specified