As used in this article, the term:
(.1) "Consumer data" means "nonpublic personal information" as such term is defined in 15 U.S.C. Section 6809(4) as it existed on January 1, 2019, that is:
Collected by a dealer; and
Provided by the dealer directly to a manufacturer or third party acting on behalf of a manufacturer. Such term shall not include the same or similar data obtained by a manufacturer from any source other than the dealer or dealer's data management system.
(.2) "Data management system" means a computer hardware or software system that:
Is owned, leased, or licensed by a dealer, including a system of web based applications, computer software, or computer hardware;
Is located at the dealership or hosted remotely; and
Stores and provides access to consumer data collected or stored by a dealer.
Such term shall include, but shall not be limited to, dealership management systems and customer relations management systems.
(8.1) "Line-make" is a collection of models, series, or groups of motor vehicles manufactured by or for a particular manufacturer, distributor, or importer that are offered for sale, lease, or distribution pursuant to a common brand name or mark; provided, however:
(13.1) "Relevant market area" means the area located within an eight-mile radius of an existing dealership.
(Code 1981, §10-1-622, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 1585, § 2; Ga. L. 1999, p. 1194, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 1233, § 1/SB 155; Ga. L. 2010, p. 988, § 2/HB 1072; Ga. L. 2015, p. 951, § 1/HB 393; Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 3C-3/SB 65; Ga. L. 2017, p. 774, § 10/HB 323; Ga. L. 2019, p. 517, § 1/SB 122; Ga. L. 2020, p. 493, § 10/SB 429.)
The 2015 amendments. The first 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, deleted "which has been sold to a dealer and" following "a motor vehicle" in paragraph (11). The second 2015 amendment, effective January 1, 2016, substituted "as defined in Code Section 11-1-201" for "as defined and interpreted in Code Section 11-1-203" at the end of paragraph (8).
The 2017 amendment, effective May 9, 2017, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, revised language in paragraph (8.1).
The 2019 amendment, effective July 1, 2019, added paragraphs (.1) and (.2).
The 2020 amendment, effective July 29, 2020, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "15 U.S.C. Section 6809(4)" for "15 U.S.C. s. 6809(4)" in paragraph (.1).
Code Commission notes.- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1999, capitalization was revised in paragraph (6).
Editor's notes.- Ga. L. 2010, p. 988, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "WHEREAS, the General Assembly desires to reaffirm the legislative findings and declarations set forth in Code Section 10-1-621 and to make changes to the Georgia Motor Vehicle Franchise Practices Act in an effort to promote the stability of franchised motor vehicle dealerships in this state, thereby maintaining necessary reliable services to the consuming public, maintaining full and fair competition among dealers in the public interest, and providing continued employment to the citizens of this state."
Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 1-1/SB 65, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "(a) This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Debtor-Creditor Uniform Law Modernization Act of 2015.'
"(b) To promote consistency among the states, it is the intent of the General Assembly to modernize certain existing uniform laws promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission affecting debtor and creditor rights, responsibilities, and relationships and other federally recognized laws affecting such rights, responsibilities, and relationships."
Law reviews.- For annual survey on business corporations, see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 61 (2012). For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 23 (2015).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Franchise agreement not created.
- Acknowledgment document between automobile dealer and automobile manufacturer did not meet the definitional requirements of the Motor Vehicle Franchise Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-620 et seq., and neither the intent of the parties nor their acknowledged course of conduct could create a statutory franchise agreement between them where none was executed. Hoyt's Cycle Store, Inc. v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., 202 Ga. App. 15, 413 S.E.2d 455 (1991), cert. denied, 202 Ga. App. 906, 413 S.E.2d 455 (1992).
Franchisee's standing to seek to enjoin establishment of competing dealership.
- Franchisee did not have standing to seek to enjoin the establishment of a competing dealership within eight miles of the franchisee's service center because: (1) for purposes of the statute, the franchisee's relevant market area was the area within eight miles of an existing dealership; (2) "dealership" meant the "person" of the corporate franchisee; (3) the franchisee's principal place of business and registered office were at a location other than the service center, which location was more than eight miles from the new dealership's proposed location; so, (4) under the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 10-1-664(b), the service center was not, by definition, an existing dealership in whose relevant market area the franchisor intended to establish a new dealership since, under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-622(1) and (2)(A), "dealership" or "dealer" was defined as the "person," which in this case was a corporation, and a corporate "dealership" or "dealer" was not defined according to the corporation's facilities. WMW, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 311 Ga. App. 1, 714 S.E.2d 689 (2011).
Under the Georgia Motor Vehicle Franchise Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-620 et seq., a corporate dealership's relevant market area, the area for which the dealer has standing to resist competition by a new or relocated dealership of the same franchisor, is the area located within an eight-mile radius of where a dealer qualified as such because the dealer is engaged in the business of selling new motor vehicles, sells those vehicles, or where a dealer qualified as such because the dealer engages exclusively in the repair of motor vehicles. WMW, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 291 Ga. 683, 733 S.E.2d 269 (2012).
Applicability of paragraph (11).
- Paragraph (11) of O.C.G.A. § 10-1-622 applies to transactions between automobile manufacturers and their franchisees not to transactions between car dealers and their retail customers. Toirkens v. Willett Toyota, Inc., 192 Ga. App. 109, 384 S.E.2d 218 (1989).
Finance company was not a franchisor and could not be liable under the Georgia Motor Vehicle Dealer's Day in Court Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-630 et seq. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. Stovall Nissan, Inc., 224 Ga. App. 295, 480 S.E.2d 322 (1997).
Cited in Coffee v. GMAC, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Ga. 1998).