Plain language
Terms to know
- Unfair discrimination
- Actions by a company regarding pricing that prevent or destroy competition or result in unjust or unreasonable profits.
- Cost
- For production, the cost of raw materials, labor, and overhead. For distribution, the lower of invoice or replacement cost plus freight, taxes, and other government charges not included in the invoice.
- Promotional sale
- A sale of limited duration, such as a grand opening, anniversary sale, or community sale, used to promote goods.
Read the official summary
Bill No.: <billno> Drafter: <drafterinit>
Bill No.:
SF0112
Drafter:
LGC
LSO No.:
09LSO-0534
Effective Date:
7/1/2009
Enrolled Act No.:
SEA0088
Chapter No.:
172
Prime Sponsor:
Senator
Scott
Catch Title:
Archaic
price regulation repeal.
Subject:
Regulation
of unfair pricing.
Summary/Major Elements:
The act amends and updates
language in statutes regulating unfair price discrimination and repeals archaic
provisions. The statutes generally prohibit actions by a company with respect
to pricing that would prevent or destroy competition or result in unjust or
unreasonable profits. Provisions which are repealed by this act include
restrictions on the pricing of petroleum products which are otherwise regulated
in statute.
The act declares any contract
or provision of a contract which violates the unfair price discrimination
statutes to be null and void to the extent of the violation.
The act clarifies that unfair
price discrimination does not include certain standard business practices such
as volume discounts and customer loyalty programs.
The act provides that
prohibitions currently in statute with respect to selling below cost do not
apply to goods sold for promotional purposes at sales of limited duration and
sales to reduce inventory.
Note:
Final action on this bill was not taken at the time this summary
was prepared. Should changes be made to the bill upon final passage, an
updated summary will be transmitted to all legislators.
Public statements
Why lawmakers voted
Last checked Aug 8, 6:52 AM
Why they voted this way
The speaker supports adopting the House version of the conference report because it simplifies proving costs by using invoice prices and acknowledges that while not perfect, it is an improvement over current laws.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues that House amendments made it too difficult to prove that selling below invoice cost destroys competition. He urges a vote against concurrence so the bill can be modified in conference to make these provisions more workable.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues that a 120-day sales period is too long for retail businesses and proposes shortening it to 30 days to prevent larger businesses from engaging in unfair competition by selling items below cost.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment as a compromise to address petroleum marketers' concerns about being driven out of business by prolonged sales below invoice cost, while noting that other sections allow for continuous inventory reduction without time limits.