Vehicles: manufacturers and distributors.

Existing law establishes the New Motor Vehicle Board in the Department of Motor Vehicles, and requires the board to hear and decide certain protests presented by a motor vehicle franchisee in regard to a dispute with the vehicle manufacturer. This bill would, until January 1, 2019, authorize the board to hear protests by an association challenging the legality of an export or sale-for-resale prohibition policy of a manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor, or distributor branch, and would establish procedures for hearing those protests, as specified. Existing law generally requires a manufacturer, distributor, transporter, or dealer of vehicles to be licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Under existing law, it is unlawful for a manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor, or distributor branch to engage in specified practices, including taking or threatening to take any adverse action against a dealer pursuant to an export or sale-for-resale prohibition because the dealer sold or leased a vehicle to a customer who either exported the vehicle to a foreign country or resold the vehicle in violation of the prohibition, unless the export or sale-for-resale prohibition policy was provided to the dealer in writing prior to the sale or lease, and the dealer knew or reasonably should have known of the customer's intent to export or resell the vehicle in violation of the prohibition at the time of sale or lease. Existing law further provides that if the dealer causes the vehicle to be registered in this or any other state, and collects or causes to be collected any applicable sales or use tax due to this state, a rebuttable presumption is established that the dealer did not have reason to know of the customer's intent to export or resell the vehicle. A violation of these provisions is a crime. This bill would recast the provisions relating to export and sale-for-resale prohibitions described above to provide that it would be unlawful to take or threaten to take any adverse action against a dealer pursuant to an export or sale-for-resale prohibition because the dealer sold or leased a vehicle to a customer who either exported the vehicle to a foreign country or resold the vehicle in violation of the prohibition unless the export or sale-for-resale prohibition policy was provided to the dealer in writing at least 48 hours before the sale or lease of the vehicle and the dealer knew or reasonably should have known of the customer's intent to export or resell the vehicle in violation of the prohibition. The bill would provide that a rebuttable presumption is established that the dealer did not have reason to know of the customer's intent to export or resell the vehicle if the dealer causes the vehicle to be registered in this or any other state, and collects or causes to be collected any applicable sales or use tax due to this state. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would, in any proceeding in which a challenge to an adverse action is at issue, require the burden of proof to be on the manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor, or distributor branch. This bill would make additional technical, nonsubstantive changes to those provisions and make related findings and declarations. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 3050.7 and 11713.3 of the Vehicle Code made by this bill and AB 759 to take effect if both bills are chaptered and this bill is chaptered last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.