Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes consumer‑protection changes on rental 'loss of use' and disclosure (58–13)
Summary
House Bill 82, amending the Consumer Sales Practices Act to address rental-company 'loss of use' charges and modernize disclosure, passed the House 58–13 after extended debate over liability 'regardless of fault' and whether the bill unduly shifts costs from rental companies to consumers.
The Utah House passed House Bill 82 on a 58–13 vote, approving consumer‑protection amendments aimed at tightening rental‑equipment and rental‑car practices that charge consumers for a vehicle's "loss of use." The sponsor, Representative Jackie Duskevski, told colleagues the bill targets deceptive or unfair charges by rental firms and modernizes disclosure for direct solicitation.
“The intent of House Bill 82 is to amend the Consumer Sales Practices Act by addressing certain consumer sales practices that have been observed by the division as being deceptive or unfair to the consumer,” Representative Duskevski said on the floor, explaining the bill tightens the law around charges for loss of use and clarifies rescission rights for newer forms of direct solicitation such as email and fax.
Floor debate focused on two central issues: (1) whether renters can be held responsible for loss‑of‑use charges "regardless of fault" when they did not cause the damage, and (2) how loss of use should be calculated when rental companies have similar substitute vehicles available. Representative Wei and others argued that making renters liable despite fault is unfair and could amount to an uncompensated taking; Representative Hickman and other supporters said the bill addresses nondisclosure and makes contractual exposure clearer to consumers.
On the insurance question, sponsors said many rental contracts currently place direct liability on renters and rental agencies sometimes pursue renters rather than insurance companies because the contract language allows it and it is an easier collection path. The sponsor also said the bill provides a formula for collecting loss of use rather than prohibiting loss‑of‑use claims outright: “We’re not trying to keep them from collecting loss of use. This bill actually provides a formula for them to collect it,” the sponsor said on the House floor.
After extended discussion and multiple questions about application and state comparisons, the House approved HB82. The bill will be transmitted to the Senate for further action.
Details and next steps: the House vote was 58–13; the sponsor cited the Department of Consumer Protection as the primary agency expected to handle complaints and administration of the new provisions.
