Archaic price regulation repeal.
In one sentence
Not clearly identified in the stored source.
No additional limitations are listed.
Official record
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 Provisions which are repealed by this act include restrictions on the pricing of petroleum products which are otherwise regulated in statute.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
Last checked Aug 8, 6:52 AM
R · S30
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.
R · S30
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.
R · S30
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.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
6 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
10 stored
Adopted 2nd reading by ILLOWAY
Failed 2nd reading by LUBNAU
Adopted 3rd reading by LUBNAU
Withdrawn Committee of the Whole by ZWONITZ,DN
Withdrawn Committee of the Whole by ILLOWAY
Withdrawn Committee of the Whole by STUBSON
Adopted Committee of the Whole by LUBNAU
Failed Standing Committee by H07
Adopted 3rd reading by PETERSON
Adopted Standing Committee by COE