Board debates allowing multiple DBAs on a single contractor license, seeks guidance
Loading...
Summary
The Commerce & Insurance board discussed whether one licensed entity should be allowed to list multiple assumed (DBA) names on a single contractor license, heard arguments about public transparency and permitting confusion, and left several implementation questions for staff follow-up.
The Commerce & Insurance licensing board discussed a recurring question on Sept. 23: whether a single licensed entity should be allowed to list more than one assumed name (doing-business-as or DBA) on a single contractor license.
Department staff told the board the secretary of state's office commonly allows multiple assumed names for a single LLC, but the board's rule requires a licensee to "enter into contracts and operate relating to contracting business under the name in which it's licensed." Staff said one interpretation is that listing multiple DBAs on a license would be compliant if the company contracts under at least one of the names on the license; the opposing interpretation is that the rule exists to prevent public confusion and therefore the license should list only the name the entity will use to operate and contract under.
Board members raised examples and concerns about consumer confusion, permitting and enforcement: customers searching the license database might find a parent LLC name with two DBAs and be uncertain which name matches a particular contract or permit. One member said the most transparent approach is to require all assumed names the company uses to be listed on the license, while others said that would risk facilitating attempts to skirt the licensing process.
Members discussed limiting the number of DBAs on a license; staff said the licensing system has character limits on the license-name field and that state law permits multiple assumed names, but the board ultimately must decide what to allow on the license. A motion was made and seconded during the meeting to set the board's policy, and members asked staff to return with options and technical constraints (system character limits, statutory maximums or limits used by other states) before a final rule or vote was recorded in the public transcript.
The transcript does not record a final roll-call vote or an adopted rule on the issue during the Sept. 23 meeting; board members asked staff to research the maximum number of DBAs the database can display and to return with a proposal.
The discussion focused on transparency for consumers and code-enforcement officers and on enforcement practicality rather than on the underlying company-formation rules at the secretary of state's office.
