House passes Motor Fuel Marketing Act amendment after heated debate over ‘tied sales’ and credit-card costs

The Utah House on the morning calendar passed House Bill 12, an amendment to the Motor Fuel Marketing Act intended to clarify how courts should treat the price of motor fuel in cases of alleged below-cost selling.

Sponsors said the bill remedies enforcement problems identified by a task force that included refiners, retailers, the Utah Energy Office, the attorney general's office and the Division of Consumer Protection. The bill would require courts evaluating "meet the competition" claims to consider the price of motor fuel on its own, "without regard to any other item sold or offered in conjunction with the sale or offer for sale of the motor fuel," sponsors said, removing language that had created ambiguity in enforcement.

The floor debate turned on whether the statute should also require courts to include the cost of items given away with fuel (for example, car washes or promotional items) in calculating whether a seller is pricing below cost. Representative Harwood and others proposed an amendment to tie the calculation more broadly to other items; that amendment failed on the floor. Representative Lyon, a sponsor, repeatedly defended the task force compromise and opposed last-minute revisions, saying they would make the law difficult to enforce: "I would resist this amendment," she said during debate.

Opponents described a constituent postcard campaign claiming the bill would "force service stations to charge me for credit card service even when I pay cash" and would "make me pay fees for credit cards I don't use." Representative Smith told colleagues many postcards contained misinformation about the bill and urged members to consider the complete statutory context, saying credit costs are already covered in another section of law. "This is not true," she said of the postcard claim.

Supporters argued the measure would protect small retailers from predatory pricing and preserve competition. Representative Prossman and others recounted examples of selective dumping and urged passage so that small competitors would not be driven out of markets. After objections, motions to circle or amend the bill failed; a previous-question motion closed debate. The clerk recorded the final tally: the bill passed the House, recorded as 55 affirmative and 14 negative votes, and it was referred to the Senate for further consideration.

The bill sponsor and supporters said they expect the statute to be more enforceable and to reduce litigation once the law’s language is clarified; opponents warned that broadening the statutory test could create practical enforcement difficulties for courts and business uncertainty.

The House also considered other calendar business before adjourning to recess at 2 p.m.