Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Business Name Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves ban on using '911' in business names after contentious debate
Summary
The Senate passed first substitute Senate Bill 213 to prohibit businesses from using '911' combinations in their names, a measure supporters said will curb fraud and exploitation of emergency branding while opponents warned it will impose a regulatory burden on dozens of small businesses.
The Senate passed first substitute Senate Bill 213 after a floor debate over whether the government should bar businesses from using the '911' combination in their names. Sponsor Senator Buxton framed the bill as protecting the public from exploitation and misleading branding: he said companies had used '911' to "rip people off" and argued that the emergency‑response connotation of "911" warranted protection.
Opponents, including Senator McKay, noted that roughly 60 businesses in Utah use "911" in their names and warned the prohibition could force small business owners to rebrand, reprint signs and stationery, and lose goodwill tied to established names. McKay asked for concrete examples of consumer confusion; Senator Maine and others responded that constituent complaints documented instances of alleged fleecing and emotional harm. Senator Ravey recounted a last‑year case of an elderly victim who was defrauded after contacting an agency that used a similar name.
Senators debated tradeoffs between consumer protection and regulatory burdens. Sponsor Buxton said the state's emergency brand should not be abused, stating, "we're not trying to hurt anybody. We're just trying to make it so people can't use 911 to fleece people in our community." After debate the Senate approved the bill 16 yeas, 6 nays, with 7 absent; the measure will be referred to the House for consideration.
The bill’s floor discussion emphasized constituent complaints and consumer protection as the rationale for prohibiting the use of '911' in business names; opponents argued the enforcement would be burdensome without clear evidence of widespread confusion. The floor record does not specify transitional relief or compensation for businesses required to change names; sponsor acknowledged potential costs but emphasized consumer safety as the priority.
